lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jason Baumeister" <ja...@snapstream.com>
Subject Re: LUCENENET-106 and Lucene.Net 2.3.1
Date Thu, 04 Dec 2008 19:00:59 GMT
After applying the 2.3.1 patch in the bug, and running through a few
different tests with a memory profiler it looks like the patch is
sufficient to fix the problem. Our app was growing to using 1+GB of
ram in a matter of hours before the patch, and stays stable under
150MB after the patch.

Jason

On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 10:33 AM, Digy <digydigy@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sample code is in the issue.
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-106
>
> DIGY.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: George Aroush [mailto:george@aroush.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2008 4:46 PM
> To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: RE: LUCENENET-106 and Lucene.Net 2.3.1
>
> I'm not up to speed with the details of this issue and there are too many
> patches in JIRA to follow through.  Even then, is there a sample code
> demonstrating the memory leak?  Lets have that first and then we can look at
> a patch.
>
> -- George
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Digy [mailto:digydigy@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 11:55 AM
>> To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: RE: LUCENENET-106 and Lucene.Net 2.3.1
>>
>> Yes, this bug has arisen with 2.1 and is still there. But as
>> far as I can remember George has some hesitations on this subject
>>
>> So George, what do you think on applying that patch?
>>
>> DIGY
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jason Baumeister [mailto:jason@snapstream.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 3:12 AM
>> To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: LUCENENET-106 and Lucene.Net 2.3.1
>>
>> There's a patch attached to LUCENENET-106 for 2.3.1 that has
>> never been committed to the real SVN repository. Does 2.3.1
>> still need the fix or has the memory leak been addressed in
>> another fashion and the bug simply hasn't been updated to
>> reflect that?
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>>
>>
>> Jason
>>
>>
>
>

Mime
View raw message