jpountz commented on pull request #91: URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/91#issuecomment-825004979
Oh, this is disappointing, maybe the arrays are too small for TimSorter to actually perform better than InPlaceMergeSorter. I'd be keen to proceed with the change that always performs a stable sort with InPlaceMergeSorter. Some cases do get slower but only by a few percents, and it's going to be unlikely noticed through the full indexing chain. On the other hand, some cases are getting several times faster, which I'm sure is going to be noticeable. We could still iterate later, but for now this sounds to me like a good performance-simplicity trade-off. What do you think? -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: issues-h...@lucene.apache.org
