dungba88 commented on PR #12738:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/12738#issuecomment-1788188467
I solved most of the nocommits (only 1 left). But I ended up using a
`List<byte[]>` where each item is a node instead of ByteBlockPool due to the
following reasons:
- With ByteBlockPool we have 2 unavoidable double byte-copies: (1) when
write from BytesStore to the primary table and (2) when promote an entry from
the fallback table to the primary table. In both situations we need to first
write into a temporary `byte[]`.
- Some additional side benefits:
- We automatically get the length of the node without any traversing
- When creating the BytesReader for FST operations, we just the `byte[]`
as is and put it to the ReverseByteReader, no copy here
--
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.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
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
