[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-665?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12617509#action_12617509
 ] 

Mark Miller commented on SOLR-665:
----------------------------------

Sent to the mailing List:

>>Depends on if you want to go by the javadoc or not - it says that if *any* of 
>>the threads accessing the map concurrently make a structural change, the map 
>>must be synchronized.  It's clear that get does not >>make a structural 
>>change when using  insertion order,  but can  any other threads possibly make 
>>a mapping change while calling get? Sounds like yes, and so the contract 
>>would seem to indicate you >>synchronize...

>>Put can modify shared variables that get accesses - sounds like dangerous 
>>ground to me. If it works, its got to be sneaky enough to warrant code 
>>smell...

>>- Mark

Further:

Here is just one of possibly many problems - a put call can resize and make an 
entirely new table array. A get call can do something like the following with 
the table array:

table[indexFor(hash, table.length)

Do to execution reordering / memory barriers, would seem to me that the table 
being indexed into and the table.length may not be the values you were hoping 
for...



> FIFO Cache (Unsynchronized): 9x times performance boost
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: SOLR-665
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-665
>             Project: Solr
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>    Affects Versions: 1.3
>         Environment: JRockit R27 (Java 6)
>            Reporter: Fuad Efendi
>         Attachments: FIFOCache.java
>
>   Original Estimate: 672h
>  Remaining Estimate: 672h
>
> Attached is modified version of LRUCache where 
> 1. map = new LinkedHashMap(initialSize, 0.75f, false) - so that 
> "reordering"/true (performance bottleneck of LRU) is replaced to 
> "insertion-order"/false (so that it became FIFO)
> 2. Almost all (absolutely unneccessary) synchronized statements commented out
> See discussion at 
> http://www.nabble.com/LRUCache---synchronized%21--td16439831.html
> Performance metrics (taken from SOLR Admin):
> LRU
> Requests: 7638
> Average Time-Per-Request: 15300
> Average Request-per-Second: 0.06
> FIFO:
> Requests: 3355
> Average Time-Per-Request: 1610
> Average Request-per-Second: 0.11
> Performance increased 9 times which roughly corresponds to a number of CPU in 
> a system, http://www.tokenizer.org/ (Shopping Search Engine at Tokenizer.org)
> Current number of documents: 7494689
> name:          filterCache  
> class:        org.apache.solr.search.LRUCache  
> version:      1.0  
> description:  LRU Cache(maxSize=10000000, initialSize=1000)  
> stats:        lookups : 15966954582
> hits : 16391851546
> hitratio : 0.102
> inserts : 4246120
> evictions : 0
> size : 2668705
> cumulative_lookups : 16415839763
> cumulative_hits : 16411608101
> cumulative_hitratio : 0.99
> cumulative_inserts : 4246246
> cumulative_evictions : 0 
> Thanks

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.

Reply via email to