[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1607?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12739628#action_12739628
]
Yonik Seeley commented on LUCENE-1607:
--------------------------------------
bq. Except I'd like the javadoc demand each impl to be
String.intern()-compatible.
If *everything* went through the same intern, it wouldn't matter.
bq. rewrite 'for' as 'for (Entry e = first;e != null;e = e.next)' for clarity?
done.
bq. If check around 'nextToLast = e' can also be removed?
I don't see how...
> 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
> Assignee: Yonik Seeley
> Fix For: 2.9
>
> Attachments: intern.patch, LUCENE-1607.patch, LUCENE-1607.patch,
> LUCENE-1607.patch, LUCENE-1607.patch, LUCENE-1607.patch, LUCENE-1607.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
