[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-3867?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13230631#comment-13230631
]
Uwe Schindler commented on LUCENE-3867:
---------------------------------------
bq. Becomes interesting. Do you know of any architecture with pointers
different than 4 or 8 bytes?
When I was writing that code, I was thinking a very long time about: Hm, should
I add a "default" case saying:
{noformat}
default:
throw new Error("Lucene does not like architectures with pointer size " +
addressSize)
{noformat}
But then I decided: If there is an architecture with a pointer size of 6, does
this break Lucene really? Hm, maybe I should have added a comment there:
{noformat}
default:
// this is the philosophical case of Lucene reaching an architecture
returning something different here
{noformat}
> RamUsageEstimator.NUM_BYTES_ARRAY_HEADER is incorrect
> -----------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-3867
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-3867
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: core/index
> Reporter: Shai Erera
> Assignee: Shai Erera
> Priority: Trivial
> Fix For: 3.6, 4.0
>
> Attachments: LUCENE-3867-compressedOops.patch, LUCENE-3867.patch,
> LUCENE-3867.patch, LUCENE-3867.patch, LUCENE-3867.patch, LUCENE-3867.patch
>
>
> RamUsageEstimator.NUM_BYTES_ARRAY_HEADER is computed like that:
> NUM_BYTES_OBJECT_HEADER + NUM_BYTES_INT + NUM_BYTES_OBJECT_REF. The
> NUM_BYTES_OBJECT_REF part should not be included, at least not according to
> this page: http://www.javamex.com/tutorials/memory/array_memory_usage.shtml
> {quote}
> A single-dimension array is a single object. As expected, the array has the
> usual object header. However, this object head is 12 bytes to accommodate a
> four-byte array length. Then comes the actual array data which, as you might
> expect, consists of the number of elements multiplied by the number of bytes
> required for one element, depending on its type. The memory usage for one
> element is 4 bytes for an object reference ...
> {quote}
> While on it, I wrote a sizeOf(String) impl, and I wonder how do people feel
> about including such helper methods in RUE, as static, stateless, methods?
> It's not perfect, there's some room for improvement I'm sure, here it is:
> {code}
> /**
> * Computes the approximate size of a String object. Note that if this
> object
> * is also referenced by another object, you should add
> * {@link RamUsageEstimator#NUM_BYTES_OBJECT_REF} to the result of this
> * method.
> */
> public static int sizeOf(String str) {
> return 2 * str.length() + 6 // chars + additional safeness for
> arrays alignment
> + 3 * RamUsageEstimator.NUM_BYTES_INT // String
> maintains 3 integers
> + RamUsageEstimator.NUM_BYTES_ARRAY_HEADER //
> char[] array
> + RamUsageEstimator.NUM_BYTES_OBJECT_HEADER; //
> String object
> }
> {code}
> If people are not against it, I'd like to also add sizeOf(int[] / byte[] /
> long[] / double[] ... and String[]).
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ContactAdministrators!default.jspa
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
