benwtrent commented on code in PR #13306:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13306#discussion_r1579769524
##########
lucene/core/src/java/org/apache/lucene/search/LRUQueryCache.java:
##########
@@ -265,7 +269,6 @@ boolean requiresEviction() {
}
CacheAndCount get(Query key, IndexReader.CacheHelper cacheHelper) {
- assert lock.isHeldByCurrentThread();
assert key instanceof BoostQuery == false;
assert key instanceof ConstantScoreQuery == false;
final IndexReader.CacheKey readerKey = cacheHelper.getKey();
Review Comment:
switching from an LRU to an LFU would require more consideration.
But, your debugging here shows that there is a fair amount of performance
being left on the table. I am surprised to see how much of a bottle neck cache
access actually is.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
us...@infra.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: issues-h...@lucene.apache.org
