Hi Thomas, The attached test reproduces the case using MVMap<String, HashMap<String, Object>>
Regards, Roland On Wednesday, March 15, 2017 at 1:13:14 PM UTC+1, Thomas Mueller Graf wrote: > > Hi, > > OK I see. I'm not sure, maybe this is a bug? Can you reproduce it with a > simple test case (for example using <Integer, String>)? > > Regards, > Thomas > > > On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 12:20 PM, Roland Lohner <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > >> Hi Thomas, >> >> I suspect you misunderstood case B). >> In that case only the search function is called. >> It means there is no overwrite as there are no put operations, only get >> operations are called. >> >> I am wondering what causes the different used cache size in case B) >> >> Regarding 1.7G java memory vs. 5G reported cache size anomaly. You are >> right. >> I have put a special structure as value into MVMap, without using a >> proper DataType as valueType. >> So MVMap did not have a chance to estimate used cache size. >> >> Regards, Roland >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "H2 Database" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected] <javascript:>. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected] >> <javascript:>. >> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/h2-database. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "H2 Database" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/h2-database. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
