HackerReposA FIELD GUIDE TO OPEN SOURCE
ProSponsor the shelf♧ 0
← Back to top all-time
airlift
slice
Java2013–2015
airlift / slice

slice

Java library for efficiently working with flat heap memory

Libraries & SDKs
Explore on GitHubRead Hacker News discussions
2Distinct people
2Mentions
0Explicit recommenders
518GitHub stars
REPOSITORY AT A GLANCE

What to know before exploring

What it is

Java library for efficiently working with flat heap memory

GitHub

Where it is used

No documented product use has been verified yet.

What people are saying

No recommendation phrase was found in the indexed comments.

No classified warning is attached to this page. Read the discussions before treating silence as approval.

Also in these discussions

No other repository is repeatedly linked in the same discussions.

This week on Hacker News

Nov 7–Nov 14 UTC · Direct repository links and separately labeled related project stories. Indexed through 11/14/2026, 3:56:07 PM UTC.

No direct repository links were found in the indexed HN discussions over the past seven days. Older discussions are available below.

Mentions over time

HN mentions by month2 dated mentions

Observed mentions: 2013-12-10 00:16:28 UTC to 2015-09-29 15:24:38 UTC.

012013-12-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2014-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 commentsDec 20132014-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2014-02-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2014-02-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2014-03-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2014-03-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2014-04-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2014-04-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2014-05-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2014-05-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2014-06-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2014-06-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2014-07-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2014-07-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2014-08-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2014-08-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2014-09-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2014-09-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2014-10-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2014-10-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2014-11-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 commentsOct 20142014-11-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2014-12-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2014-12-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2015-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2015-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2015-02-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2015-02-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2015-03-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2015-03-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2015-04-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2015-04-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2015-05-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2015-05-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2015-06-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2015-06-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2015-07-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2015-07-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2015-08-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2015-08-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2015-09-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2015-09-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2015-10-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 commentsSep 2015

Counts come from the repository’s dated source evidence. Index cutoff: 2026-11-02 08:16:59 UTC.

View mention counts and date ranges
UTC ranges include their start and exclude their end. Select a period to filter the source evidence.
PeriodStart (UTC)End (exclusive, UTC)MentionsSubmissionsComments
Dec 20132013-12-01 00:00:00 UTC2014-01-01 00:00:00 UTC101
Jan 20142014-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2014-02-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Feb 20142014-02-01 00:00:00 UTC2014-03-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Mar 20142014-03-01 00:00:00 UTC2014-04-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Apr 20142014-04-01 00:00:00 UTC2014-05-01 00:00:00 UTC000
May 20142014-05-01 00:00:00 UTC2014-06-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Jun 20142014-06-01 00:00:00 UTC2014-07-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Jul 20142014-07-01 00:00:00 UTC2014-08-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Aug 20142014-08-01 00:00:00 UTC2014-09-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Sep 20142014-09-01 00:00:00 UTC2014-10-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Oct 20142014-10-01 00:00:00 UTC2014-11-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Nov 20142014-11-01 00:00:00 UTC2014-12-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Dec 20142014-12-01 00:00:00 UTC2015-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Jan 20152015-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2015-02-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Feb 20152015-02-01 00:00:00 UTC2015-03-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Mar 20152015-03-01 00:00:00 UTC2015-04-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Apr 20152015-04-01 00:00:00 UTC2015-05-01 00:00:00 UTC000
May 20152015-05-01 00:00:00 UTC2015-06-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Jun 20152015-06-01 00:00:00 UTC2015-07-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Jul 20152015-07-01 00:00:00 UTC2015-08-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Aug 20152015-08-01 00:00:00 UTC2015-09-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Sep 20152015-09-01 00:00:00 UTC2015-10-01 00:00:00 UTC101

What Hacker News says

2 sources
buremba·Sep 29, 2015
If you're interested in these topics, I strongly suggest you to take a look at Facebook Presto's source code. Unfortunately, they don't have any documentation about the internals of Presto but they extensively tested and implemented these techniques in order to archive C/C++ like performance in Java. The slice library (the underlying memory management library of Presto) might be a good start for that: https://github.com/airlift/slice
In Apache Flink: Juggling with Bits and Bytes
strlen·Dec 10, 2013
I/O is I/O: the big differences are lack of certain APIs (which could make it poorly suited to some -- but not majority -- of I/O intensive use cases; needing -- afaik this isn't resolved with NIO.2 -- needing to use native bindings for kernel AIO is one example), poor APIs (ByteBuffer, I'm looking at you, but here's an alternative: https://github.com/airlift/slice), and the fact that by IO (obviously) involves making JNI calls which do have a latency penalty, but one that is dominated by costs of I/O itself (if code is well written, we're speaking nanoseconds here -- while even a FusionIO device would have latency measured in microseconds). I would say for bulk throughput oriented transfer from disk to socket via sendfile(), I'd say the costs of using Java are not noticeable at all. Re: Google. MapReduce paper was published in 2004, only
Read the rest
a few years after Java 1.4 was released. The infrastructure it is built on top of -- and like M/R itself -- were most certainly written before Java 1.4 was released and likely at a time where running Java on Linux meant using Blackdown -- which had its own issues. Java 1.4 is when java.util.concurrent and non-blocking I/O were introduced; prior to this, writing scalable socket in Java was far more difficult. It would also be until Java 1.6 that epoll() would be supported by Java on Linux, etc... The other big part is that Map/Reduce is not in a vacuum: while Map/Reduce workloads are mostly I/O dominated, other pieces of infrastructure built on those working blocks are very memory intensive. Google "Java GC" to why that is still an issue with Java (despite having an extremely advanced concurrent garbage collector) In addition, I'd machine in the case of Google the performance advantages of C++ (more about things like being able to lay memory out in precise ways and being friendly to the CPU caches, rather than about pure performance) really do matter -- as Joshua Bloch put it "inner loops of indexers would likely stay in C++". Finally Google does have at least some infrastructural pieces that in Java: I do know that there are first-class supported APIs for BigTable/Spanner and Map/Reduce in Java, there is also the FlumeJava paper (an EDSL for Map/Reduce in Java), and while I believe C++ infrastructure has superseded MegaStore it is one piece of Java being used for Google's core infrastructure. That's not to even mention Google's well known exteandnsive use of Java for web-applications/middle-ware including AdSense/AdWords billing and management and gmail. In the end, you can certainly write I/O intensive applications with Java, but with some caveats: be sure it's actually I/O intensive and the non-I/O intensive parts perform fine in Java, be wary of GC hell, know how to avoid excess/implicit copying (pretty much a case in any languages), and be sure that the APIs you plan to use are available. In the end, I don't think it's an either/or answer: given (hate to use a buzzword, but it certainly applies) service oriented architecture, you can implement various pieces of a system in languages best suited for that task. This is becoming easier in the H* world now that protobufs is the "native" RPC language as opposed to Java serialization.
In Apache Kafka 0.8.0 released

MAKE YOURSELF AT HOME

A few shortcuts

/
Search the collection
?
Open this guide
Esc
Close dialogs and navigation

Your saved repositories and interests stay in this browser.