[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1410?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12839509#action_12839509
]
Paul Elschot commented on LUCENE-1410:
--------------------------------------
bq. I thought that removing the IntBuffer and working directly with the byte
array will be faster ...
When the int values are in processor byte order, a call to IntBuffer.get() may
be reduced by the JIT to a single hardware instruction. This is why the initial
implementation uses IntBuffer.
Also, the index bound checks need only be done once for the first and last
index used.
I have no idea why a 64 bit OS would be slower than a 32 bit OS.
> PFOR implementation
> -------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-1410
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1410
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Components: Other
> Reporter: Paul Elschot
> Priority: Minor
> Attachments: autogen.tgz, for-summary.txt,
> LUCENE-1410-codecs.tar.bz2, LUCENE-1410b.patch, LUCENE-1410c.patch,
> LUCENE-1410d.patch, LUCENE-1410e.patch, TermQueryTests.tgz, TestPFor2.java,
> TestPFor2.java, TestPFor2.java
>
> Original Estimate: 21840h
> Remaining Estimate: 21840h
>
> Implementation of Patched Frame of Reference.
--
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
