[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2075?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12782071#action_12782071
 ] 

Jason Rutherglen commented on LUCENE-2075:
------------------------------------------

{quote} And honestly I'm still tempted to do away with this
cache altogether and create a "query scope", private to each
query while it's running, where terms dict (and other places
that need to, over time) could store stuff. That'd give a
perfect within-query hit rate and wouldn't tie up any long term
RAM... {quote}

Sounds better than the caching approach which if I recall
correctly, Michael B. noted was kind of a hack (i.e. this isn't
really a cache, isn't it just a convenient way of recalling
immediately previously read data whose scope is really within
the query itself).

> 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
>            Assignee: Michael McCandless
>            Priority: Minor
>             Fix For: 3.1
>
>         Attachments: ConcurrentLRUCache.java, LUCENE-2075.patch, 
> LUCENE-2075.patch, LUCENE-2075.patch, LUCENE-2075.patch, LUCENE-2075.patch, 
> LUCENE-2075.patch, LUCENE-2075.patch, LUCENE-2075.patch, LUCENE-2075.patch, 
> LUCENE-2075.patch
>
>
> 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