Details
-
Bug
-
Status: Resolved
-
Minor
-
Resolution: Won't Fix
-
4.0-BETA
-
None
-
None
-
None
Description
I find it a little disturbing that LFUCache shares most of its behavior (not strictly bounded size, good at concurrent reads, slow at writes unless eviction is performed in a separate thread) with FastLRUCache while it sounds like it is the LFU equivalent of LRUCache (strictly bounded size, synchronized reads, fast writes) so I'd like to rename it to FastLFUCache.
Maybe we should also rename these Fast*Cache to Concurrent*Cache so that people don't think that they are better than their non Fast alternatives in every way.
Attachments
Issue Links
- is depended upon by
-
SOLR-3393 Implement an optimized LFUCache
- Resolved