Hi, On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 1:54 PM, Chetan Mehrotra <[email protected]> wrote: > Initial test based on this show quite a bit of saving in terms of > memory taken
This suggests that we could/should also look at optimizing the size of objects cached in the JVM heap. Your numbers suggest that each Document cache entry takes a few kilobytes of memory on average, which is quite a lot. The average SegmentMK entry is an order of magnitude smaller. > Thoughts? In general I think such an L2 cache makes a lot of sense (TarMK uses memory mapped files for the same effect). That said, I think we should also pay attention to how the L1 cache could be used more effectively and not just let an L2 cache postpone the issue to a bigger scale. BR, Jukka Zitting
