Hi,

I recently saw activity on LUCENE-831 (Complete overhaul of FieldCache
API/Implementation) which I have interest in.
I posted previously on this with my concern that given the current default
cache I sometimes get OOM-errors because I have a lot of fields which are
sorted on, which ultimately causes the fieldcache to grow greater then
available RAM.

ultimately I want to subclass the new pluggable Fieldcache of lucene-831 to
offload to disk (using ehcache or memcachedB or something) but havn't found
the time yet.

What I would like to know for now is if perhaps the newly implemented
standard cache in LUCENE-831 uses another strategy of caching than the
standard Fieldcache in Lucene.

i.e: The normal cache consumes memory while generating a fieldcache for
every document in lucene even though the document hasn't got that field set.

Since my documents are very sparse in these fields I want to sort on it
would differ a_lot when documents that don't have the field in question set
don't add up in the used memory.

So am I lucky? Or would I indeed have to cook up something myself?
Thanks and best regards,

Geert-Jan


--
Sent from the Lucene - Java Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscribe@(protected)
For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-help@(protected)