I'm curious -- what kind of memory overhead were you seeing on ConcurrentHashMap? I just wrote a quick test program and it seems to be slightly less memory-efficient than straight HashMap, but only a few percent.
-Todd On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 7:37 PM, Avinash Lakshman <[email protected] > wrote: > Another issue with ConcurrentHashMap is that the dude is a memory hog. We > got rid of it over a year ago because of the very same reason. Also for > everything that is done there is a reason. I think we are not asking for > much to apart from run it by someone before what are basically changes that > suit your style. There is a reason why something is done the way it is - we > have been at this for over a year and half. I understand the community > business but it has to be established that random changes need to be under > check. At this rate everyone can just go trigger happy w/o any process in > place. It is important that this is realized. > > Avinash > > On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 3:52 PM, Avinash Lakshman < > [email protected] > > wrote: > > > Compactions etc are breaking now in our tests. I am going to revert all > new > > commits that have gone in. Are you sure these are tested changes? We need > to > > have a review process for changing code that is functioning. This is very > > very frustrating. > > > > Avinash > > >
