[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-665?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12617529#action_12617529
 ] 

funtick edited comment on SOLR-665 at 7/28/08 12:51 PM:
------------------------------------------------------------

concerns are probably because of misunderstanding of  some _contract_... 

{code}
    /**
     * The table, resized as necessary. Length MUST Always be a power of two.
     */
    transient Entry[] table;

    void resize(int newCapacity) {
        Entry[] oldTable = table;
        int oldCapacity = oldTable.length;
        if (oldCapacity == MAXIMUM_CAPACITY) {
            threshold = Integer.MAX_VALUE;
            return;
        }

        Entry[] newTable = new Entry[newCapacity];
        transfer(newTable);
        table = newTable;
        threshold = (int)(newCapacity * loadFactor);
    }


    public V get(Object key) {
        if (key == null)
            return getForNullKey();
        int hash = hash(key.hashCode());
        for (Entry<K,V> e = table[indexFor(hash, table.length)];
             e != null;
             e = e.next) {
            Object k;
            if (e.hash == hash && ((k = e.key) == key || key.equals(k)))
                return e.value;
        }
        return null;
    }

{code}


- in worst case we will have pointer to _old_ table and even with _new_ one of 
smaller size we won't get _any_ ArrayIndexOutOfBounds.
There is no any _contract_ requiring synchronization on get() of HashMap or 
LinkedHashMap; it IS application specific.
- we will never have _wrong_ results because Entry is immutable

      was (Author: funtick):
    concerns are probably because of misunderstanding of  some _contract_... 

{code}
    /**
     * The table, resized as necessary. Length MUST Always be a power of two.
     */
    transient Entry[] table;

    void resize(int newCapacity) {
        Entry[] oldTable = table;
        int oldCapacity = oldTable.length;
        if (oldCapacity == MAXIMUM_CAPACITY) {
            threshold = Integer.MAX_VALUE;
            return;
        }

        Entry[] newTable = new Entry[newCapacity];
        transfer(newTable);
        table = newTable;
        threshold = (int)(newCapacity * loadFactor);
    }


    public V get(Object key) {
        if (key == null)
            return getForNullKey();
        int hash = hash(key.hashCode());
        for (Entry<K,V> e = table[indexFor(hash, table.length)];
             e != null;
             e = e.next) {
            Object k;
            if (e.hash == hash && ((k = e.key) == key || key.equals(k)))
                return e.value;
        }
        return null;
    }

{code}


- in worst case we will have pointer to _old_ table and even with _new_ one of 
smaller size we won't get _any_ ArrayIndexOutOfBounds.
There is no any _contract_ requiring synchronization on get() of HashMap or 
LinkedHashMap; it IS application specific.

  
> 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