Hi, I recently saw activity on LUCENE-831 (Complete overhaul of FieldCache API/Implementation) which I have interest in. I posted previously on this with my concern that given the current default cache I sometimes get OOM-errors because I have a lot of fields which are sorted on, which ultimately causes the fieldcache to grow greater then available RAM.
ultimately I want to subclass the new pluggable Fieldcache of lucene-831 to offload to disk (using ehcache or memcachedB or something) but havn't found the time yet. What I would like to know for now is if perhaps the newly implemented standard cache in LUCENE-831 uses another strategy of caching than the standard Fieldcache in Lucene. i.e: The normal cache consumes memory while generating a fieldcache for every document in lucene even though the document hasn't got that field set. Since my documents are very sparse in these fields I want to sort on it would differ a_lot when documents that don't have the field in question set don't add up in the used memory. So am I lucky? Or would I indeed have to cook up something myself? Thanks and best regards, Geert-Jan -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/LUCENE-831-%28complete-cache-overhaul%29--%3E-mem-use-tp20505283p20505283.html Sent from the Lucene - Java Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
