On Fri, May 20, 2005 at 04:15:42PM -0400, David Binger wrote:
> Can you say more about this?  If you are looping over this many objects,
> and really want them to be loaded and stay loaded, it seems like you
> need
> a larger size for the existing cache or maybe you need to touch these

Aha!  It turns out that my working set ends up being around 9500
objects, and the cache size was still at the default value of 8000, so
it must have been thrashing a lot.  Bumping up the cache to 12000
helps immensely.

Puzzling, though -- I instrumented .get() to count calls and cache
hits, but the numbers were really tiny -- 10 calls, 6 misses.  Oh, I
see!  ObjectReader calls .cache_get(), which I hadn't noticed and
hadn't instrumented; that must have been where all the cache hits were
occurring.

--amk