[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-4062?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13403971#comment-13403971
]
Adrien Grand commented on LUCENE-4062:
--------------------------------------
This is very interesting!
Results computed on mars are very strange so I think we should not take them
into account to make decisions...
bq. When should we stop optimizing?
This is a relevant question. I think there is no problem going further provided
that we have evidence that the changes improve performance in most cases and
that the code remains maintainable. For example, it is probably not necessary
to work on specialized Packed64 for the 2^n bits cases since there are direct
impls for the 8, 16, 32 and 64 bits cases and since the new Packed64SingleBlock
impl seems to be as fast for 1, 2 and 4 bits per value.
However, I think it makes sense to replace Packed64SingleBlock with the
inheritance-based impl since it seems faster than the current impl and than
Packed64. I will open an issue if the graphs computed on your core i7 computer
confirm this trend.
> More fine-grained control over the packed integer implementation that is
> chosen
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-4062
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-4062
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: core/other
> Reporter: Adrien Grand
> Assignee: Adrien Grand
> Priority: Minor
> Labels: performance
> Fix For: 4.0, 5.0
>
> Attachments: LUCENE-4062-2.patch, LUCENE-4062.patch,
> LUCENE-4062.patch, LUCENE-4062.patch, LUCENE-4062.patch, LUCENE-4062.patch,
> LUCENE-4062.patch, LUCENE-4062.patch, Packed64SingleBlock.java,
> Packed64Strategy.java, Packed64calc.java, PackedIntsBenchmark.java,
> PackedIntsBenchmark.java, PackedIntsBenchmark.java,
> measurements_te_graphs.pdf, measurements_te_i7.txt, measurements_te_p4.txt,
> measurements_te_xeon.txt
>
>
> In order to save space, Lucene has two main PackedInts.Mutable implentations,
> one that is very fast and is based on a byte/short/integer/long array
> (Direct*) and another one which packs bits in a memory-efficient manner
> (Packed*).
> The packed implementation tends to be much slower than the direct one, which
> discourages some Lucene components to use it. On the other hand, if you store
> 21 bits integers in a Direct32, this is a space loss of (32-21)/32=35%.
> If you accept to trade some space for speed, you could store 3 of these 21
> bits integers in a long, resulting in an overhead of 1/3 bit per value. One
> advantage of this approach is that you never need to read more than one block
> to read or write a value, so this can be significantly faster than Packed32
> and Packed64 which always need to read/write two blocks in order to avoid
> costly branches.
> I ran some tests, and for 10000000 21 bits values, this implementation takes
> less than 2% more space and has 44% faster writes and 30% faster reads. The
> 12 bits version (5 values per block) has the same performance improvement and
> a 6% memory overhead compared to the packed implementation.
> In order to select the best implementation for a given integer size, I wrote
> the {{PackedInts.getMutable(valueCount, bitsPerValue,
> acceptableOverheadPerValue)}} method. This method select the fastest
> implementation that has less than {{acceptableOverheadPerValue}} wasted bits
> per value. For example, if you accept an overhead of 20%
> ({{acceptableOverheadPerValue = 0.2f * bitsPerValue}}), which is pretty
> reasonable, here is what implementations would be selected:
> * 1: Packed64SingleBlock1
> * 2: Packed64SingleBlock2
> * 3: Packed64SingleBlock3
> * 4: Packed64SingleBlock4
> * 5: Packed64SingleBlock5
> * 6: Packed64SingleBlock6
> * 7: Direct8
> * 8: Direct8
> * 9: Packed64SingleBlock9
> * 10: Packed64SingleBlock10
> * 11: Packed64SingleBlock12
> * 12: Packed64SingleBlock12
> * 13: Packed64
> * 14: Direct16
> * 15: Direct16
> * 16: Direct16
> * 17: Packed64
> * 18: Packed64SingleBlock21
> * 19: Packed64SingleBlock21
> * 20: Packed64SingleBlock21
> * 21: Packed64SingleBlock21
> * 22: Packed64
> * 23: Packed64
> * 24: Packed64
> * 25: Packed64
> * 26: Packed64
> * 27: Direct32
> * 28: Direct32
> * 29: Direct32
> * 30: Direct32
> * 31: Direct32
> * 32: Direct32
> * 33: Packed64
> * 34: Packed64
> * 35: Packed64
> * 36: Packed64
> * 37: Packed64
> * 38: Packed64
> * 39: Packed64
> * 40: Packed64
> * 41: Packed64
> * 42: Packed64
> * 43: Packed64
> * 44: Packed64
> * 45: Packed64
> * 46: Packed64
> * 47: Packed64
> * 48: Packed64
> * 49: Packed64
> * 50: Packed64
> * 51: Packed64
> * 52: Packed64
> * 53: Packed64
> * 54: Direct64
> * 55: Direct64
> * 56: Direct64
> * 57: Direct64
> * 58: Direct64
> * 59: Direct64
> * 60: Direct64
> * 61: Direct64
> * 62: Direct64
> Under 32 bits per value, only 13, 17 and 22-26 bits per value would still
> choose the slower Packed64 implementation. Allowing a 50% overhead would
> prevent the packed implementation to be selected for bits per value under 32.
> Allowing an overhead of 32 bits per value would make sure that a Direct*
> implementation is always selected.
> Next steps would be to:
> * make lucene components use this {{getMutable}} method and let users decide
> what trade-off better suits them,
> * write a Packed32SingleBlock implementation if necessary (I didn't do it
> because I have no 32-bits computer to test the performance improvements).
> I think this would allow more fine-grained control over the speed/space
> trade-off, what do you think?
--
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
