I see. Yes, if a logical mapping of "byte[] ---> (offset and*arbitrary data)" is required, this indirection is necessary.
Thanks. Yijian Huang At 2016-05-08 23:06:14,"Adrien Grand" <jpou...@gmail.com> wrote: >That would work if you are only interested in using BytesRefHash as a hash >set for byte[]. However these incremental ids are useful if you want to >associate data with each byte[]: you can create parallel arrays and use the >ids returned by the BytesRefHash as indices in these arrays. > >Le dim. 8 mai 2016 à 14:45, shanghaihyj <shanghai...@163.com> a écrit : > >> I'm studying the BytesRefHash class, a mapping from bytes to a generated >> ID for the bytes. >> >> In the BytesRefHash class, there are two levels of reference: >> (1) ids[bytes' hash code] ---> count, where count is the self-incremental >> size of the this hashmap. >> (2) bytesStart[count] ---> offset in the ByteBlockPool, where the original >> bytes are stored. >> >> >> My question is, can the above two references be collapsed into one, as >> follows ? >> ids[bytes' hash code] ---> offset in the ByteBlockPool. >> >> >> I've searched the code, and cannot grab an idea what's the benefit to have >> another indirection via bytesStart. >> >> >> p.s. Regarding such questions about Lucene source code, should I ask in >> d...@lucene.apache.org instead ? These questions may be too easy and thus >> bothering to the developers...
