[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2075?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12779253#action_12779253
 ] 

Mark Miller commented on LUCENE-2075:
-------------------------------------

bq. Well, that's just hosted on code.google.com (ie it's not "Google's"), 

Ah - got that vibe, but it didn't really hit me.

bq. though they do state that they created a "Production Version"

Right - thats what I was thinking we might try. Though the whole, trying this 
from scratch to learn is a bit scary too ;) But hey, I'm not recommending, just 
perhaps trying it.

bq. I think FastLRUCache is probably best for Lucene, because it scales up well 
w/ high number of threads?

Indeed - though if we expect a low hit ratio, we might still compare it with 
regular old synchronized LinkedHashMap to be sure. In certain cases, puts 
become quite expensive I think.

bq. It looks like ConcurrentLRUCache (used by FastLRUCache, but the latter does 
other solr-specific things) is the right low-level one to use for Lucene?

Right.

> Share the Term -> TermInfo cache across threads
> -----------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: LUCENE-2075
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2075
>             Project: Lucene - Java
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: Index
>            Reporter: Michael McCandless
>            Priority: Minor
>             Fix For: 3.1
>
>         Attachments: ConcurrentLRUCache.java
>
>
> Right now each thread creates its own (thread private) SimpleLRUCache,
> holding up to 1024 terms.
> This is rather wasteful, since if there are a high number of threads
> that come through Lucene, you're multiplying the RAM usage.  You're
> also cutting way back on likelihood of a cache hit (except the known
> multiple times we lookup a term within-query, which uses one thread).
> In NRT search we open new SegmentReaders (on tiny segments) often
> which each thread must then spend CPU/RAM creating & populating.
> Now that we are on 1.5 we can use java.util.concurrent.*, eg
> ConcurrentHashMap.  One simple approach could be a double-barrel LRU
> cache, using 2 maps (primary, secondary).  You check the cache by
> first checking primary; if that's a miss, you check secondary and if
> you get a hit you promote it to primary.  Once primary is full you
> clear secondary and swap them.
> Or... any other suggested approach?

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org

Reply via email to