[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-667?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12644554#action_12644554
]
Noble Paul commented on SOLR-667:
---------------------------------
{code}
CacheEntry[] eset = new CacheEntry[sz];
int eSize = 0;
{code}
Isn't it too expensive to create a potentially huge array every time we do a
clean? (too much work for GC) .May be we do not even need it if the first loop
is enough. Moreover this one thing has added more code.
I didn't use lucene PriorityQueue because if somebody wished to lift the code
they can easily do so if there is no other dependency. When I posted the
requirement in google collections there was a lot of interest in such a
component. Can TreeSet do the trick?
> 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
> Assignee: Yonik Seeley
> Fix For: 1.4
>
> Attachments: ConcurrentLRUCache.java, ConcurrentLRUCache.java,
> ConcurrentLRUCache.java, SOLR-667-alternate.patch, SOLR-667-alternate.patch,
> SOLR-667-updates.patch, SOLR-667.patch, SOLR-667.patch, SOLR-667.patch,
> SOLR-667.patch, SOLR-667.patch, 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.
