Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Memory leak in file indexer #351

Closed
facboy opened this issue Jan 27, 2017 · 4 comments
Closed

Memory leak in file indexer #351

facboy opened this issue Jan 27, 2017 · 4 comments

Comments

@facboy
Copy link

facboy commented Jan 27, 2017

Environent
  • Operating system:
    Ubuntu 16.04
  • Desktop environment:
    MATE
  • Qt version:
    5.5.1
  • Source:
    ppa:nilarimogard/webupd8
Steps to reproduce

Click on Files Plugin, click on Update Index

Expected behaviour

I'd expect it's memory size not to permanently increase every time the index is updated.

Actual behaviour

The memory size increases every time the index is updated. If left running with auto-refresh, eventually Albert ends up with a memory footprint of several GB.

@Fuhrmann
Copy link
Contributor

Fuhrmann commented Jan 27, 2017

Related #1

@idkCpp
Copy link
Contributor

idkCpp commented Jan 27, 2017

What do you mean by

permanently increase

When clicking on Update Index albert will create a list of all files to index (this is the simple version).
This list is kept. Until you trigger the next update. When the next update finishes, the old list will be deleted and the new one will take its place. So for a short time there will be twice the memory usage but this should revert as soon as the indexing finishes.
Do you really experience a significant increase when you repeatedly press Update Index? Please test this, but keep in mind to wait for the indexer to finish before triggering the next update.

@qazip
Copy link

qazip commented Jan 27, 2017

I also notice this. Albert starts with around 55mb of ram or something, and I usually end the day with around 150.

@ManuelSchneid3r
Copy link
Member

Finally a bug that I could reproduce.

@ManuelSchneid3r ManuelSchneid3r added this to the 0.9.2 milestone Jan 28, 2017
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants