Re: LFU vs solr.FastLRUCache

2015-07-06 Thread William Bell
We should get that done!! :) On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 7:09 AM, Shawn Heisey wrote: > On 7/5/2015 10:11 PM, William Bell wrote: > > Has anyone used solr.LFUCache in Production to replace: > > > > > > > size="4096" > > > > initialSize="4096" cleanupThread="true" > > autowarmCount

Re: LFU vs solr.FastLRUCache

2015-07-06 Thread Shawn Heisey
On 7/5/2015 10:11 PM, William Bell wrote: > Has anyone used solr.LFUCache in Production to replace: > > > size="4096" > > initialSize="4096" cleanupThread="true" > autowarmCount="32"/> > > Thoughts? I wrote the LFUCache. It's the most basic and naive implementation possibl

Re: LFU vs solr.FastLRUCache

2015-07-06 Thread Alessandro Benedetti
What is exactly your question ? I mean, what is the problem you are seeing using FastLRUCache? What is not convincing you in using the LFU ( it that one solves your requirement? ) Cheers 2015-07-06 5:11 GMT+01:00 William Bell : > Has anyone used solr.LFUCache in Production to replace: > > >

LFU vs solr.FastLRUCache

2015-07-05 Thread William Bell
Has anyone used solr.LFUCache in Production to replace: Thoughts? -- Bill Bell billnb...@gmail.com cell 720-256-8076