[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-667?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12643738#action_12643738
]
Noble Paul commented on SOLR-667:
---------------------------------
bq.Could it be associated with the overhead of maintaining the least recently
used entries?
The overhead is ~= 0. It just has to increment an AtomicLong everytime you do a
get() .I suspect the 'pulsing' may be because of GC pauses. enable GC logging
and you will know
> Alternate LRUCache implementation
> ---------------------------------
>
> Key: SOLR-667
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-667
> Project: Solr
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Components: search
> Affects Versions: 1.3
> Reporter: Noble Paul
> Assignee: Shalin Shekhar Mangar
> Fix For: 1.4
>
> Attachments: ConcurrentLRUCache.java, ConcurrentLRUCache.java,
> ConcurrentLRUCache.java, SOLR-667.patch, SOLR-667.patch, SOLR-667.patch,
> SOLR-667.patch, SOLR-667.patch, SOLR-667.patch, SOLR-667.patch
>
>
> The only available SolrCache i.e LRUCache is based on _LinkedHashMap_ which
> has _get()_ also synchronized. This can cause severe bottlenecks for faceted
> search. Any alternate implementation which can be faster/better must be
> considered.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
