[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-667?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12635159#action_12635159
]
Yonik Seeley commented on SOLR-667:
-----------------------------------
bq. I can improve mine with your cleanup code (if you think it is fine)
+1
I'd also include the manual tracking of size() that mine did... the
ConcurrentHashMap.size() doesn't look fast.
Another thing to think about : pass an optional Executor in the constructor
instead of creating a cleaning thread... and if it's null, it means "do it in
the foreground". That would add flexibility and the ability to avoid one
thread per cache if desired.
> Alternate LRUCache implementation
> ---------------------------------
>
> Key: SOLR-667
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-667
> Project: Solr
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Components: search
> Affects Versions: 1.3
> Reporter: Noble Paul
> Fix For: 1.4
>
> Attachments: ConcurrentLRUCache.java, ConcurrentLRUCache.java,
> ConcurrentLRUCache.java, SOLR-667.patch, SOLR-667.patch, SOLR-667.patch,
> SOLR-667.patch
>
>
> The only available SolrCache i.e LRUCache is based on _LinkedHashMap_ which
> has _get()_ also synchronized. This can cause severe bottlenecks for faceted
> search. Any alternate implementation which can be faster/better must be
> considered.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
