[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-7258?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15265328#comment-15265328
 ] 

Adrien Grand commented on LUCENE-7258:
--------------------------------------

When I said per thread, I did not mean that the pool needs to be per thread, I 
just wanted to highlight that if you want N concurrent requests to all use this 
cache, you need a cache of quite a significant size. Sorry for not being 
encouraging but I worked on similar caches before and I was not happy with the 
end result: it is sometimes hard to know when an instance can actually be 
recycled, it is hard to know when the cache should give memory back to the JVM 
(especially for a library), the fact that you often end up using oversized 
instances encourages to use paging but then things are slower, etc. Relying on 
the JVM makes things simpler.

> Tune DocIdSetBuilder allocation rate
> ------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: LUCENE-7258
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-7258
>             Project: Lucene - Core
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: modules/spatial
>            Reporter: Jeff Wartes
>         Attachments: 
> LUCENE-7258-Tune-memory-allocation-rate-for-Intersec.patch, 
> LUCENE-7258-Tune-memory-allocation-rate-for-Intersec.patch, 
> allocation_plot.jpg
>
>
> LUCENE-7211 converted IntersectsPrefixTreeQuery to use DocIdSetBuilder, but 
> didn't actually reduce garbage generation for my Solr index.
> Since something like 40% of my garbage (by space) is now attributed to 
> DocIdSetBuilder.growBuffer, I charted a few different allocation strategies 
> to see if I could tune things more. 
> See here: http://i.imgur.com/7sXLAYv.jpg 
> The jump-then-flatline at the right would be where DocIdSetBuilder gives up 
> and allocates a FixedBitSet for a 100M-doc index. (The 1M-doc index 
> curve/cutoff looked similar)
> Perhaps unsurprisingly, the 1/8th growth factor in ArrayUtil.oversize is 
> terrible from an allocation standpoint if you're doing a lot of expansions, 
> and is especially terrible when used to build a short-lived data structure 
> like this one.
> By the time it goes with the FBS, it's allocated around twice as much memory 
> for the buffer as it would have needed for just the FBS.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org

Reply via email to