Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

better faster smaller roaring bitmaps #1759

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Sep 22, 2015
Merged

Conversation

xvrl
Copy link
Member

@xvrl xvrl commented Sep 21, 2015

No description provided.

@xvrl xvrl added this to the 0.8.2 milestone Sep 21, 2015
@drcrallen
Copy link
Contributor

👍

@gianm
Copy link
Contributor

gianm commented Sep 21, 2015

Are there any compatibility concerns? (can this version read the older bitmaps? can older versions read these newer bitmaps?)

@drcrallen
Copy link
Contributor

@gianm I asked the same thing here: metamx/bytebuffer-collections#15 (comment)

@gianm
Copy link
Contributor

gianm commented Sep 21, 2015

So it sounds like this version can read older bitmaps, but older versions cannot read the newer bitmaps (because we are going to be writing optimized bitmaps). That sounds OK, since we tell people to update historicals first anyway.

On the bytebuffer-collections diff I think we should change the roaring version to a specific version rather than a range. Builds with version ranges are not reproducible, and it is good for builds to be reproducible.

@xvrl
Copy link
Member Author

xvrl commented Sep 22, 2015

@gianm released a new version with fixed dependency

@gianm
Copy link
Contributor

gianm commented Sep 22, 2015

👍

drcrallen added a commit that referenced this pull request Sep 22, 2015
better faster smaller roaring bitmaps
@drcrallen drcrallen merged commit 045f725 into apache:master Sep 22, 2015
@drcrallen drcrallen deleted the update-roaring branch September 22, 2015 01:50
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants