https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66209
--- Comment #3 from Christopher Schultz <ch...@christopherschultz.net> --- (In reply to Mark Thomas from comment #1) > This patch essentially trades memory for performance. We have some users > that won't want to make that trade - even if the memory concerned is > relatively small. > > Given the competing demands here, I think we need to find a way to make this > configurable. Whether that is by expanding useBloomFilterForArchives beyond > a simple boolean, by tweaking the background processing frequency or by a > new configuration option is TBD. I want to mull this over a little bit > before making any changes. > > Thoughts? +1 true = use the bloom filter as exists today false = do not use the bloom filter wankel = use the bloom filter with cache-purges I think it makes sense to re-name/alias the current setting to something more clear such as "archiveIndexing" with values like "simple", "bloom" and now "purged-bloom" or whatever. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org
