stefanvodita commented on issue #14222:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/issues/14222#issuecomment-2681480284
> Do you have any recommendations, such as any existing benchmarks I could
use for this use case?
Have you looked at [luceneutil](https://github.com/mikemccand/luceneutil
sgup432 commented on issue #14222:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/issues/14222#issuecomment-2679321128
>But in a typical workload we expect to be spending most of our time
executing queries rather than caching them, which will reduce the amount of
time spent acquiring locks, and the
msokolov commented on issue #14222:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/issues/14222#issuecomment-2678412268
This shows a nice improvement on the microbenchmark! But in a typical
workload we expect to be spending most of our time executing queries rather
than caching them, which will redu
sgup432 commented on issue #14222:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/issues/14222#issuecomment-2675501604
I re-ran test with 1mb cache, and assuming 50 lucene segments
Numbers are even better!
## Performance Comparison: v1 vs v2
| Benchmark
sgup432 commented on issue #14222:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/issues/14222#issuecomment-2673153965
I got busy with other stuff but got sometime to run initial benchmark for
this.
I essentially micro-benchmarked `putIfAbsent()` and `get()`methods in
isolation for QueryCache
stefanvodita commented on issue #14222:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/issues/14222#issuecomment-2653320901
Sounds interesting, keen to see if we measure a performance improvement!
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on
