[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-8018?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16221874#comment-16221874
]
Adrien Grand commented on LUCENE-8018:
--------------------------------------
I agree there is some complexity here, but this is unrelated to this patch to
me. The patch actually makes things more consistent: the comment about the
memory threshold makes no sense if we are retaining a reference to the TreeMap
in any case. Moreover, it feels wrong to penalize users who have dense fields
vs. sparse fields.
bq. undoing existing optimizations to try to manage the technical debt here
I'd be ok with going with the array approach all the time.
> FieldInfos retains garbage if non-sparse
> ----------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-8018
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-8018
> Project: Lucene - Core
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: core/store
> Affects Versions: 6.5
> Environment: Lucene 6.5.0, java 8
> openjdk version "1.8.0_45-internal"
> OpenJDK Runtime Environment (build 1.8.0_45-internal-b14)
> OpenJDK 64-Bit Server VM (build 25.45-b02, mixed mode)
> Reporter: Julian Vassev
> Labels: easyfix, performance
> Fix For: master (8.0), 7.2
>
> Attachments: LUCENE-8018.patch
>
>
> A heap dump revealed a lot of TreeMap.Entry instances (millions of them) for
> a system with about ~1000 active searchers.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.4.14#64029)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
