Just wanted to know if there was a performance impact to setting a maxElementsInMemory much higher than what is actually used? For example, a max of 10,000 and using only 100.
只是想知道设置maxElementsInMemory对性能的影响是否比实际使用的高得多？例如，最大10,000，仅使用100。
ehcache.xml
ehcache.xml中
<defaultCache
eternal="false"
overflowToDisk="false"
maxElementsInMemory="10000"
timeToIdleSeconds="7200"
timeToLiveSeconds="0"/>
Context: I am using ehcache with hibernate and I want all records of a table (all entities) to be cached. From one customer to another, the number of records in that table varies so it is hard to set a precise max.
上下文：我正在使用带有hibernate的ehcache，我希望缓存一个表（所有实体）的所有记录。从一个客户到另一个客户，该表中的记录数量不同，因此很难设置精确的最大值。
Thanks!
谢谢！
Marc
渣子
1 个解决方案
#1
4
No, there is none. This is just a max value. If your cache only holds 100 items, you will pay the cost of a map holding 100 elements. The upper limit has nothing to do here.
不，没有。这只是一个最大值。如果您的缓存只包含100个项目，您将支付包含100个元素的地图的费用。上限与此无关。
You can safely use much higher limit (underneath it is a simple ConcurrentHashMap) although it is hard to justify such a choice.
您可以安全地使用更高的限制（在它下面是一个简单的ConcurrentHashMap），虽然很难证明这样的选择。
#1
4
No, there is none. This is just a max value. If your cache only holds 100 items, you will pay the cost of a map holding 100 elements. The upper limit has nothing to do here.
不，没有。这只是一个最大值。如果您的缓存只包含100个项目，您将支付包含100个元素的地图的费用。上限与此无关。
You can safely use much higher limit (underneath it is a simple ConcurrentHashMap) although it is hard to justify such a choice.
您可以安全地使用更高的限制（在它下面是一个简单的ConcurrentHashMap），虽然很难证明这样的选择。