I couldn't find a method like Keys.First(). Why don't you send your own working copy of LRUCache. If it is faster, we can use it.
DIGY -----Original Message----- From: x...@mail.ru [mailto:x...@mail.ru] Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 5:58 PM To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [jira] Updated: (LUCENENET-190) 2.4.0 Performance in TermInfosReader term caching (New implementation of SimpleLRUCache) Digy пишет: > This time you will get an error with "TimeStamps.Keys[0]". To get the key at > index 0, you have to copy the "keys" to a temporary array. > > Ok i missed that Keys returns KeyCollection instead of an array. But you can use Keys.First() instead of Keys[0]. It should be fast. > DIGY. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: x...@mail.ru [mailto:x...@mail.ru] > Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 5:24 PM > To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: [jira] Updated: (LUCENENET-190) 2.4.0 Performance in > TermInfosReader term caching (New implementation of SimpleLRUCache) > > Digy wrote: > >> SortedDictionary does not have a getter with index (like Data[Index]). In a >> SortedList, Data[0] is always the LRU item. >> >> >> > I didn't find any use of index access for SortedList (TimeStamps) except > of : > if (Data.Count > Capacity) > { > long key = TimeStamps.Keys[0]; > Data.Remove(TimeStamps[key]); > TimeStamps.RemoveAt(0); <------------- > } > > In case of SortedDictionary it can be replaced by: > if (Data.Count > Capacity) > { > long key = TimeStamps.Keys[0]; > Data.Remove(TimeStamps[key]); > TimeStamps.Remove(key); > } > > Am I missed something? > > --- > Andrei > >> I got much more better results with RedBlackCS.RedBlack ( >> http://www.codeproject.com/KB/recipes/redblackcs.aspx ) but it is huge and >> there may be licensing problems. >> >> >> DIGY. >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: x...@mail.ru [mailto:x...@mail.ru] >> Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 4:51 PM >> To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org >> Subject: Re: [jira] Updated: (LUCENENET-190) 2.4.0 Performance in >> TermInfosReader term caching (New implementation of SimpleLRUCache) >> >> SimpleLRUCache_LUCENENET_190 uses SortedList<long, object> collection. >> >> Performance of SortedList (see >> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms132339.aspx): >> 1) Add method is an O(n) operation for unsorted data. It is an O(log n) >> operation if the new element is added at the end of the list. >> If insertion causes a resize, the operation is O(n). >> 2) Remove method method is an O(n) operation >> 3) RemoveAt method is an O(n) operation >> 4) Keys property is an O(1) operation >> >> Why not to use SortedDictionary<>? It has better performance for Remove and >> Add: >> >> 1) Add method is an O(log n) operation >> >> 2) Remove method is an O(log n) operation >> >> 3) Keys property is an O(1) operation >> >> >> >> > > > <http://www.garweb.ru> > > >
