mikemccand commented on issue #12714: URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/issues/12714#issuecomment-1785695227
> Perhaps instead of UnCompiledNode, we could encode it as byte-array (could take the same format as the FST-encoded binary, but the FST operation works on absolute address value thus would need some modification). +1 my plan here is to simply take the `byte[]` slice encoding of that one node, clone it into an appending `ByteBlockPool` (one for each of the two hash sets in the double-barrel cache), and use that for the exact value comparison to an incoming `UnCompiledNode`. It's the same is is done today, it's just that the `byte[]` comes from our copy instead of the appending FST. > And then use LinkedHashSet<UnCompiledNode, Long>. Yeah this is the obvious way to implement an LRU cache in Java, but the RAM overhead is just astounding compared to the double-barrel hash set we use now, I suspect. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: issues-h...@lucene.apache.org
