[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1574?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12695115#action_12695115
]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-1574:
--------------------------------------------
Presumably it wouldn't save on memory (the pool would presumably sometimes be
holding onto spares, for future reuse), but could save on time, right?
Or, maybe instead we could spend our effort making a simple transactional data
structure for holding deletes/norms (I think there's already an issue on this
-- maybe it's LUCENE-1526).
> PooledSegmentReader, pools SegmentReader underlying byte arrays
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-1574
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1574
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: contrib/*
> Affects Versions: 2.4.1
> Reporter: Jason Rutherglen
> Priority: Minor
> Fix For: 2.9
>
> Original Estimate: 168h
> Remaining Estimate: 168h
>
> PooledSegmentReader pools the underlying byte arrays of deleted docs and
> norms for realtime search. It is designed for use with IndexReader.clone
> which can create many copies of byte arrays, which are of the same length for
> a given segment. When pooled they can be reused which could save on memory.
> Do we want to benchmark the memory usage comparison of PooledSegmentReader vs
> GC? Many times GC is enough for these smaller objects.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
