[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1607?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12701626#action_12701626
]
Earwin Burrfoot commented on LUCENE-1607:
-----------------------------------------
I tried it out. Works a little bit better than simple cache (no stray interns
must've paid off), doesn't degrade at all.
I'd like to change starter value to something 256-1024, it works way better for
10-20 fields.
Why h >> 7? I understand that you're sacking collision-guilty bits, but why not
exact amount that was used (have to store it?), or a whole byte or two?
> String.intern() faster alternative
> ----------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-1607
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1607
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Earwin Burrfoot
> Fix For: 2.9
>
> Attachments: intern.patch, LUCENE-1607.patch, LUCENE-1607.patch,
> LUCENE-1607.patch, LUCENE-1607.patch
>
>
> By using our own interned string pool on top of default, String.intern() can
> be greatly optimized.
> On my setup (java 6) this alternative runs ~15.8x faster for already interned
> strings, and ~2.2x faster for 'new String(interned)'
> For java 5 and 4 speedup is lower, but still considerable.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
