[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-667?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12649982#action_12649982
]
Yonik Seeley commented on SOLR-667:
-----------------------------------
Does this have a thread leak? Where is FastLRUCache.destroy() ever called?
It's called from the finalizer (yuck), *but* that finalizer will never be
called because the cleaning thread references the cache (the definition of
liveness). Issues with having the cache deal with the thread lifecycle is why
I previously recommended exploring the use of an Executor that the user passes
in.
> 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, 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.
