[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-9822?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17295404#comment-17295404
]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-9822:
--------------------------------------------
+1, no unit test needed for one-line {{assert}} addition. Thanks [~gsmiller]!
{quote}But if you are trying to do something like blocksize=512, seems like you
would need to allow for more exceptions (e.g. 12 or something) for the patching
to be effective for general purposes. Maybe worth checking literature as I
don't know off the top of my head where these numbers (128, 3) etc came from.
{quote}
+1 – seems (naively) like the number of exceptions should probably grow
linearly? We could probably make some crazy offline tool that gathers all the
ints we are encoding into a given index and then measures what compression we
could achieve with different numbers of patched exceptions.
> Assert that ForUtil.BLOCK_SIZE can be encoded in a single byte in PForUtil
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-9822
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-9822
> Project: Lucene - Core
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: core/codecs
> Affects Versions: master (9.0)
> Reporter: Greg Miller
> Priority: Trivial
> Attachments: LUCENE-9822.patch
>
>
> PForUtil assumes that ForUtil.BLOCK_SIZE can be encoded in a single byte when
> generating "patch offsets". If this assumption doesn't hold, PForUtil will
> silently encode incorrect positions. While the BLOCK_SIZE isn't particularly
> configurable, it would be nice to assert this assumption early in PForUtil in
> the even that the BLOCK_SIZE changes in some future codec version.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: issues-h...@lucene.apache.org
