I tested the new version of WeakHashTable with the code below, with the code
in LUCENENET-106(Paches for v2.3.1.rar
<https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12384768/Paches+for+v2.3.1
.rar> :Form1.cs) and all Lucene.Net nunit tests. All tests pass but any
comments are also welcome.
DIGY.
<pre>
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Text;
using NUnit.Framework;
namespace Lucene.Net._Support
{
[TestFixture]
public class TestWeakHashTable
{
[Test]
public void A_TestBasicOps()
{
SupportClass.WeakHashTable weakHashTable = new
SupportClass.WeakHashTable();
System.Collections.Hashtable realHashTable = new
System.Collections.Hashtable();
SmallObject[] so = new SmallObject[100];
for (int i = 0; i < 20000; i++)
{
SmallObject key = new SmallObject(i);
SmallObject value = key;
so[i/200] = key;
realHashTable.Add(key, value);
weakHashTable.Add(key, value);
}
Assert.AreEqual(weakHashTable.Count, realHashTable.Count);
System.Collections.ICollection keys =
(System.Collections.ICollection)weakHashTable.Keys;
foreach(SmallObject key in keys)
{
Assert.AreEqual(((SmallObject)realHashTable[key]).i,
((SmallObject)weakHashTable[key]).i);
Assert.IsTrue( realHashTable[key].Equals(weakHashTable[key])
);
}
System.Collections.ICollection values1 =
(System.Collections.ICollection)weakHashTable.Values;
System.Collections.ICollection values2 =
(System.Collections.ICollection)realHashTable.Values;
Assert.AreEqual(values1.Count, values2.Count);
realHashTable.Remove(new SmallObject(10000));
weakHashTable.Remove(new SmallObject(10000));
Assert.AreEqual(weakHashTable.Count, 20000);
Assert.AreEqual(realHashTable.Count, 20000);
for (int i = 0; i < so.Length; i++)
{
realHashTable.Remove(so[i]);
weakHashTable.Remove(so[i]);
Assert.AreEqual(weakHashTable.Count, 20000-i-1);
Assert.AreEqual(realHashTable.Count, 20000-i-1);
}
//After removals, compare the collections again.
System.Collections.ICollection keys2 =
(System.Collections.ICollection)realHashTable.Keys;
foreach (SmallObject o in keys2)
{
Assert.AreEqual(((SmallObject)realHashTable[o]).i,
((SmallObject)weakHashTable[o]).i);
Assert.IsTrue(realHashTable[o].Equals(weakHashTable[o]));
}
//Test Enumerator
long count1 = 0;
foreach (System.Collections.DictionaryEntry so1 in
realHashTable)
{
count1 += ((SmallObject)so1.Value).i;
}
long count2 = 0;
foreach (System.Collections.DictionaryEntry so2 in
weakHashTable)
{
count2 += ((SmallObject)so2.Value).i;
}
Console.WriteLine(count1 + " =?= " + count2);
Assert.AreEqual(count1, count2);
}
[Test]
public void B_TestOutOfMemory()
{
SupportClass.WeakHashTable wht = new
SupportClass.WeakHashTable();
for (int i = 0; i < 1024*8+32; i++) // requested Mem. > 8GB
{
wht.Add(new BigObject(i), i);
}
GC.Collect();
Console.WriteLine("Passed out of memory exception.");
}
int GetMemUsageInKB()
{
return System.Diagnostics.Process.GetCurrentProcess().WorkingSet
/ 1024;
}
[Test]
public void C_TestMemLeakage()
{
SupportClass.WeakHashTable wht = new
SupportClass.WeakHashTable();
int initialMemUsage = GetMemUsageInKB();
Console.WriteLine("Initial MemUsage=" + initialMemUsage);
for (int i = 0; i < 10000; i++)
{
wht.Add(new BigObject(i), i);
if (i % 100 == 0)
{
int mu = GetMemUsageInKB();
Console.WriteLine(i.ToString() + ") MemUsage=" + mu);
}
}
GC.Collect();
int memUsage = GetMemUsageInKB();
if (memUsage > initialMemUsage * 2) Assert.Fail("Memory Leakage.
MemUsage=" + memUsage);
}
}
class BigObject
{
public int i = 0;
public byte[] buf = null;
public BigObject(int i)
{
this.i = i;
buf = new byte[1024 * 1024]; //1MB
}
}
class SmallObject
{
public int i = 0;
public SmallObject(int i)
{
this.i = i;
}
}
}
</pre>
-----Original Message-----
From: George Aroush [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, January 09, 2009 2:26 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: lucene 2.3.1 tag
I'm in the process of reviewing Doug's patch for 2.3.2 (LUCENENET-164). I
should have it done in a week or so. Three is also a need to review the
latest patch from DIGY for the WeakHashMap fix (LUCENENET-106). Any
volunteers?
-- George
> -----Original Message-----
> From: TJ Kolev [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2009 3:18 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: lucene 2.3.1 tag
>
> Greetings,
>
> How close is a 2.3.2 release/tag? What tasks are left?
>
> Thank you.
> tjk :)
>
> On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 5:12 PM, Digy <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Probably, there will be no tag for 2.3.1. But 2.3.2 is on the way.
> > Stay tuned.
> >
> > DIGY.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Dotzenrod, Kevin [mailto:[email protected]]
> > Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 7:57 PM
> > To: [email protected]
> > Subject: lucene 2.3.1 tag
> >
> > Any idea when there will be a tag for Lucene.net version 2.3.1.
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> >
> >
> > Kevin
> >
> >
> >
>
