iverase commented on code in PR #16083:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/16083#discussion_r3264707676
##########
lucene/core/src/java/org/apache/lucene/search/LRUQueryCache.java:
##########
@@ -572,13 +572,7 @@ public Collection<Accountable> getChildResources() {
* and a {@link BitDocIdSet} over a {@link FixedBitSet} otherwise.
*/
protected CacheAndCount cacheImpl(BulkScorer scorer, int maxDoc) throws
IOException {
- if (scorer.cost() * 100 >= maxDoc) {
- // FixedBitSet is faster for dense sets and will enable the random-access
- // optimization in ConjunctionDISI
- return cacheIntoBitSet(scorer, maxDoc);
Review Comment:
So this would be a step in that direction:
https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/16084
I like the idea of going away of those fixed bit set in caching as they are
a source of humongous allocations which moving to RoaringBitSet would avoid.
How can be test the performance here?
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
