Mailing-List: contact java-user-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: local policy)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753.1)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <CD1CA9AE-3EA2-4860-9A77-C03959A3A111@ulfdittmer.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
From: Ulf Dittmer <ulf@ulfdittmer.com>
Subject: question about (problem with?) use of FieldCache$StringIndex
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 23:13:48 +0200

Hello-

We're looking at memory issues we're having with a fair-sized web app  
that uses Lucene for search. While looking at heap dumps, we  
discovered that there were 3 instances of  
org.apache.lucene.search.FieldCache$StringIndex, each about 110MB in  
size (out of a total of 1 GB).

Looking at the javadocs, I'm not real clear what the class does, but  
it doesn't seem to have any settings one could change. So I'm  
wondering: Is it normal to have more than one instance of this? Is it  
necessary? Are there circumstances in which this could be avoided? If  
we can't avoid it being used: are there ways of making it use less  
memory?

Thanks in advance for any clue. The trusted "Lucene In Action"  
doesn't talk about the class, and our code doesn't use it directly,  
so I'm a bit stumped.

Ulf


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-help@lucene.apache.org