|
|
|
|
|
|
by throwaway894345
1325 days ago
|
|
|
The parent said “most” so both can be true: most maps don’t need to shrink and the example in the article is a valid case where shrinking a map would be desirable. This seems obvious so I’m confused by your confusion. :) |
|
|
> However, let’s say we want to store one hour of data. Meanwhile, our company has decided to have a big promotion for Black Friday: in one hour, we may have millions of customers connected to our system. But a few days after Black Friday, our map will contain the same number of buckets as during the peak time. This explains why we can experience high memory consumption that doesn’t significantly decrease in such a scenario.
> What are the solutions if we don’t want to manually restart our service to clean the amount of memory consumed by the map?
I don’t see that as a strong argument for making the implementation of maps more complex by adding some auto- shrinking. If your process survived Black Friday with a map full of items, why would it run out of memory after it with a map that’s mostly empty but didn’t return bookkeeping memory to the heap? Your process likely will keep running. There may be a slight performance drop because cache lookups become more likely to lead to cache misses, but otherwise, the typical system won’t care much about the use of virtual memory space.