Documented Behaviour of NumCounters Not Observed about ristretto

[karlmcguire]

This is probably because of the TinyLFU admission policy rejecting new Sets in the first case, due to the incoming items not being deemed "valuable" enough. In the second case, the low number of counters is causing a high amount of collisions when TinyLFU is checking for incoming item value and most of them are getting through.

I'm not sure of your use case but in the first case you're probably only checking the initial Set. Right now, Ristretto expects you to call Set multiple times (with missed Get calls as well), this is the process of "building up item value" within TinyLFU. Eventually the Set will succeed when it's found to be a valuable item.

Could you post the full code you're using to check the hit ratio?

[karlmcguire]

Just checking in to make sure this still isn't an issue?

[nisdas]

Hey @karlmcguire, sorry for the late reply, I must have missed this.

This is probably because of the TinyLFU admission policy rejecting new Sets in the first case, due to the incoming items not being deemed "valuable" enough.

In that case, in my situation each new object has a few sets. But I am guessing it doesn't have enough new sets to be valuable enough so that it is admitted to the cache. So once the cache is full basically no new object can be admitted in, as not enough set/gets are called on it. However what about old objects in the cache that do not have anymore gets called on them ? They do not seem to be getting evicted. Would they only be evicted if a new item is 'valuable' enough to be admitted in ?