Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-java-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 43150 invoked from network); 2 Apr 2009 20:25:36 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 2 Apr 2009 20:25:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 58508 invoked by uid 500); 2 Apr 2009 20:25:34 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-java-dev-archive@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 58441 invoked by uid 500); 2 Apr 2009 20:25:34 -0000 Mailing-List: contact java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list java-dev@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 58295 invoked by uid 99); 2 Apr 2009 20:25:34 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 02 Apr 2009 20:25:34 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2000.0 required=10.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received: from [140.211.11.140] (HELO brutus.apache.org) (140.211.11.140) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 02 Apr 2009 20:25:33 +0000 Received: from brutus (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by brutus.apache.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DA4F234C48D for ; Thu, 2 Apr 2009 13:25:13 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <2141704629.1238703913316.JavaMail.jira@brutus> Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 13:25:13 -0700 (PDT) From: "Michael McCandless (JIRA)" To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: [jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1574) PooledSegmentReader, pools SegmentReader underlying byte arrays In-Reply-To: <1859728616.1238110730607.JavaMail.jira@brutus> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-JIRA-FingerPrint: 30527f35849b9dde25b450d4833f0394 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1574?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12695115#action_12695115 ] Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-1574: -------------------------------------------- Presumably it wouldn't save on memory (the pool would presumably sometimes be holding onto spares, for future reuse), but could save on time, right? Or, maybe instead we could spend our effort making a simple transactional data structure for holding deletes/norms (I think there's already an issue on this -- maybe it's LUCENE-1526). > PooledSegmentReader, pools SegmentReader underlying byte arrays > --------------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: LUCENE-1574 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1574 > Project: Lucene - Java > Issue Type: Improvement > Components: contrib/* > Affects Versions: 2.4.1 > Reporter: Jason Rutherglen > Priority: Minor > Fix For: 2.9 > > Original Estimate: 168h > Remaining Estimate: 168h > > PooledSegmentReader pools the underlying byte arrays of deleted docs and norms for realtime search. It is designed for use with IndexReader.clone which can create many copies of byte arrays, which are of the same length for a given segment. When pooled they can be reused which could save on memory. > Do we want to benchmark the memory usage comparison of PooledSegmentReader vs GC? Many times GC is enough for these smaller objects. -- 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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org