[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-8673?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16964764#comment-16964764
]
Thomas Mueller commented on OAK-8673:
-------------------------------------
> 0 should be possible.... can run those in addition
I would probably do that, and check if it really works as expected (the cache
is really empty). Or maybe hardcode some logic that means if 0, then don't use
the cache (might be a bit hard).
> the lazy-loading doesn't seems to have a beneficial effect (except for
> reading really few items, which in AEM is rarely the case)
Do you assume that with a small EagerCacheSize, lazy loading isn't used at all?
I don't know the code, but it sounds like it's better to somehow disable the
lazy loading logic, in order to be sure it's not used by some unexpected code
path.
> Determine and possibly adjust size of eagerCacheSize
> ----------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: OAK-8673
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-8673
> Project: Jackrabbit Oak
> Issue Type: Technical task
> Components: core, security
> Reporter: Angela Schreiber
> Assignee: Angela Schreiber
> Priority: Major
>
> The initial results of the {{EagerCacheSizeTest}} seem to indicate that we
> almost never benefit from the lazy permission evaluation (compared to reading
> all permission entries right away). From my understanding of the results the
> only exception are those cases where only very few items are being accessed
> (e.g. reading 100 items).
> However, I am not totally sure if this is not a artifact of the random-read.
> I therefore started extending the benchmark with an option to re-read a
> randomly picked item more that once, which according to some analysis done
> quite some time ago is a common scenario specially when using Oak in
> combination with Apache Sling.
> Result are attached to OAK-8662 (possibly more to come).
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)
