[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1990?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12852557#action_12852557 ]
Toke Eskildsen commented on LUCENE-1990: ---------------------------------------- It seem like my unit-testing of PackedInts.Mutable wasn't good enough. There is a bug in Packed64 (and probably in Packed32 too) when using the set-method. In certain cases the secondary block is changed when it should be left alone. A simple unit-test is {code} PackedInts.Mutable mutable = PackedInts.getMutable(26, 5); mutable.set(24, 16); mutable.set(4, 16); assertEquals("The value #24 should remain unchanged", 31, mutable.get(24)); {code} The PackedWriter uses a different algorithm for generating the bit stream and is unaffected by this bug. I expect the write-masks for the set-method to be at fault and I am working on a fix. ETA: Within an hour or sometime during the weekend, depending on difficulty. > Add unsigned packed int impls in oal.util > ----------------------------------------- > > Key: LUCENE-1990 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1990 > Project: Lucene - Java > Issue Type: Improvement > Components: Index > Affects Versions: Flex Branch > Reporter: Michael McCandless > Priority: Minor > Fix For: Flex Branch > > Attachments: generated_performance-te20100226.txt, > LUCENE-1990-te20100122.patch, LUCENE-1990-te20100210.patch, > LUCENE-1990-te20100212.patch, LUCENE-1990-te20100223.patch, > LUCENE-1990-te20100226.patch, LUCENE-1990-te20100226b.patch, > LUCENE-1990-te20100226c.patch, LUCENE-1990-te20100301.patch, > LUCENE-1990.patch, LUCENE-1990.patch, > LUCENE-1990_PerformanceMeasurements20100104.zip, perf-mkm-20100227.txt, > performance-20100301.txt, performance-te20100226.txt > > > There are various places in Lucene that could take advantage of an > efficient packed unsigned int/long impl. EG the terms dict index in > the standard codec in LUCENE-1458 could subsantially reduce it's RAM > usage. FieldCache.StringIndex could as well. And I think "load into > RAM" codecs like the one in TestExternalCodecs could use this too. > I'm picturing something very basic like: > {code} > interface PackedUnsignedLongs { > long get(long index); > void set(long index, long value); > } > {code} > Plus maybe an iterator for getting and maybe also for setting. If it > helps, most of the usages of this inside Lucene will be "write once" > so eg the set could make that an assumption/requirement. > And a factory somewhere: > {code} > PackedUnsignedLongs create(int count, long maxValue); > {code} > I think we should simply autogen the code (we can start from the > autogen code in LUCENE-1410), or, if there is an good existing impl > that has a compatible license that'd be great. > I don't have time near-term to do this... so if anyone has the itch, > please jump! -- 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