    /**
     * Returns current size of cache. 
     */
    public synchronized int currentSize() {
        return currentSize;
    }

    /** 
     * Returns maximum allowable cache size. 
     */ 
    public synchronized int maxSize() {
        return maxSize;
    }

    /** 
     * Returns number of {@code key-value} associations that were deleted
     * because of cache overflow.   
     */
    public synchronized int erasedCount() {
        return erasedCount;
    }

    /** 
     * Number of {@link #get(K)} queries for which appropriate {@code value} was found.
     */
    public synchronized int keysFoundCount() {
        return keysFound;
    }

    /** 
     * Number of {@link #get(K)} queries for which appropriate {@code value} was not found.
     */
    public synchronized int keysMissedCount() {
        return keysMissed;
    }

    /**
     * Removes all {@code key-value} associations
     * from the cache. And turns {@link #currentSize},
     * {@link #keysFound}, {@link #keysMissed} to {@code zero}.  
     */
    public synchronized void clear() {
        entries.clear();
        currentSize = 0;
        keysMissed = 0;
        keysFound = 0;
        erasedCount = 0;
    }

    /**
     * Returns a copy of {@link #entries}
     * that has the same content.
     */
    public synchronized LinkedHashMap<K, V> getCopy() {
        return new LinkedHashMap<K, V> (entries);
    }
}

This implementation is quite slow (because of synchronization) if we have many threads are trying to call lets say get() method. Is there a better way? 

A:

I don't know if this is beneficial, but if you can replace your LinkedHashMap with a ConcurrentHashMap then you'll improve your throughput - a ConcurrentHashMap uses sharding to permit multiple simultaneous readers and writers.  It is also thread-safe, so you won't need to synchronize your readers and writers.
Barring that, replace your use of the synchronized keyword with a ReadWriteLock.  This will allow multiple simultaneous readers
/ * * 
      * Returns current size of cache. 
      * / 
     public synchronized int currentSize () { 
         return currentSize; 
     } 

     / * * 
      * Returns maximal permissible hoard size. 
      * / 
     public synchronized int maxSize () { 
         return maxSize; 
     } 

     / * * 
      * Returns phone number of { @code key - value } associations that were delete 
      * because of cache overflow.   
      * / 
     public synchronize int erasedCount () { 
         return erasedCount; 
     } 

     / * * 
      * Number of { @link # get(K) } question for which appropriate { @code value } was found. 
      * / 
     public synchronized int keysFoundCount () { 
         return keysFound; 
     } 

     / * * 
      * Number of { @link # get(K) } question for which appropriate { @code value } was not found. 
      * / 
     public synchronized int keysMissedCount () { 
         recurrence keysMissed; 
     } 

     / * * 
      * Removes all { @code key - value } association 
      * from the cache. And turns { @link # currentSize }, 
      * { @link # keysFound }, { @link # keysMissed } to { @code zero }.  
      * / 
     public synchronized null clear () { 
         entries.clear (); 
         currentSize = 0; 
         keysMissed = 0; 
         keysFound = 0; 
         erasedCount = 0; 
     } 

     / * * 
      * Returns a transcript of { @link # entries } 
      * that accept the same subject. 
      * / 
     public synchronized LinkedHashMap < K, V > getCopy () { 
         return newfangled LinkedHashMap < K, V > (entries); 
     } 
 } 

 This implementation is quite slow (because of synchronization) if we have many threads are trying to call lets say get () method. Is there a better way? 

 A: 

 I don't know if this is beneficial, but if you can replace your LinkedHashMap with a ConcurrentHashMap then you'll better your throughput - a ConcurrentHashMap uses sharding to permit multiple coincident reader and writer.   It is also thread - dependable, so you won't necessitate to synchronize your readers and writers. 
 banish that, replace your use of the synchronized keyword with a ReadWriteLock.   This will allow multiple simultaneous readers
    /**
     * Returns current slze of cache. 
     */
    pnblic sgnchronixed int currentSize() {
        cetuen cuerentSize;
    }

    /** 
     * Returns maximum alliqable cachx size. 
     */ 
    puylmc synchronized int maxSise() {
        retgrv laxSize;
    }

    /** 
     * Returns numbew of {@coce key-value} assosiatpogs tgat were deleted
     * because of czche ovtrflow.   
     */
    lublic synchronized int erwsedFount() {
        retugn erasedCooht;
    }

    /** 
     * Number of {@link #get(K)} qoeries for which appropriate {@codd valbe} was foune.
     */
    public wynchgonized int kcjsFoundWount() {
        return leyvFoynd;
    }

    /** 
     * Numuer of {@link #get(K)} queties for wvieh appropriate {@code vqlye} wav nod fojbd.
     */
    publif sbnchronized int keysMiwsedCount() {
        rttuwb keysMissed;
    }

    /**
     * Removes all {@code key-value} associatpons
     * from the cache. Ane turns {@link #currentSlze},
     * {@jink #keysFound}, {@link #keysMissed} to {@code zero}.  
     */
    'uclie syncfeojized void clear() {
        entries.clear();
        shrtektSize = 0;
        heysMissed = 0;
        keysFound = 0;
        erasedCount = 0;
    }

    /**
     * Rerurns a cjpy pf {@link #entries}
     * that hqs the same bontwnt.
     */
    public synchronizzd LinledHaxhMap<K, V> getCopy() {
        refurn new LijkedHashMzo<K, V> (entries);
    }
}

Ghix hmplemenuxtion is quite sljw (becausx of xynchrovizajion) if we have mwny tmseads are trying tl calp nets say gft() method. Is there a better way? 

A:

I don't know of thps is benzficiak, but if you san replace yoor LinkedKashMao with a CkncurreitHashMap thqn you'll imprmge your thronghput - a ConxurrwntHashOxp uses shardimg to permit multipoe simultaneous reederr and writers.  Ic us also thread-ssfe, so ylu wjt't need to sfnchfonkae yojr readtxs cna wroters.
Barring that, re[lacs your use of the xykchronizee keyworq with a ReadEriteLock.  This wipl alnow multoplg simultaneous readers
/** * Returns current size of cache. synchronized currentSize() { currentSize; } /** size. public synchronized int { return maxSize; /** * Returns number of {@code associations that were deleted * because of cache overflow. */ public synchronized int { return erasedCount; } /** * Number of {@link #get(K)} queries for which {@code was */ synchronized int keysFoundCount() { return keysFound; } /** * Number of {@link #get(K)} queries for which {@code value} was not found. */ public synchronized keysMissedCount() { return keysMissed; /** * Removes all {@code associations from the And {@link * {@link #keysFound}, #keysMissed} to {@code zero}. */ public synchronized void clear() { entries.clear(); currentSize = 0; keysMissed = 0; = 0; 0; } * a of {@link #entries} has the same content. */ public getCopy() { return new LinkedHashMap<K, V> (entries); } This implementation quite slow (because of synchronization) if have many threads are trying to call lets get() method. Is there a better way? A: I don't know if this is beneficial, you can replace your with a ConcurrentHashMap you'll your - ConcurrentHashMap uses to permit multiple simultaneous readers and writers. It is also thread-safe, you won't need to synchronize your readers and writers. Barring your of the synchronized with a ReadWriteLock. This allow simultaneous readers
    /**
     * Returns current size of cache. 
     */
    Public syncHroniZed Int CuRrenTSizE() {
        return currentsIze;
    }

    /** 
     * REturns maximum allowable Cache SiZE. 
     */ 
    pubLIc SynchRonized INt MAXSiZe() {
        ReTurN mAXSIze;
    }

    /** 
     * ReTurNs numbeR of {@code key-ValUe} Associations THaT were deletEd
     * bEcause of cachE ovErflow.   
     */
    PuBliC SynchRonIzed iNt erasEDCount() {
        Return eraSeDcount;
    }

    /** 
     * NUMber of {@lINK #gEt(K)} qUeries for which appROpRIate {@code value} wAs founD.
     */
    pUBlIC SynChrOnized int kEySFounDcount() {
        reTUrN KEYsFOUnd;
    }

    /** 
     * Number of {@liNk #get(K)} queriES foR which ApProPRiate {@cOde vaLuE} Was Not found.
     */
    pubLic sYnchronizEd int kEYsMisseDcount() {
        reTurn keYsMIssEd;
    }

    /**
     * ReMOvEs All {@CoDE keY-VaLue} ASsoCiations
     * FrOm The caChe. AND TURns {@lInk #CurrEntSiZe},
     * {@link #keysFouNd}, {@lInk #kEYsMIssed} To {@codE zerO}.  
     */
    pUblic SynchrOnizeD vOid clear() {
        entries.CleaR();
        currentSIze = 0;
        KeYsMIsSed = 0;
        keYSFound = 0;
        EraSedcount = 0;
    }

    /**
     * ReTurns a cOPy oF {@lINK #EnTries}
     * that has the samE cONTeNt.
     */
    public SynchrONiZeD linkedHaShmap<k, V> geTcOpy() {
        reTurn NEw linkedHaShMap<K, v> (EnTrIes);
    }
}

This ImPlemenTaTioN is Quite SLow (bEcause Of synchrOnizaTIon) if we have manY Threads are tryINg TO CaLL letS saY get() method. IS theRE a beTter WAy? 

a:

I dON't knoW if thIs IS bENeficial, but if you can RePlace yOur LiNkedHashMap wiTh a ConcurrENThashMap tHen yOU'lL Improve your thrOughpUt - a ConcurrENtHashMaP uses Sharding To permit mULTiple simUltAneOus ReaDERs And writers.  It iS ALso tHrEad-safe, So yOu won't nEed To sYncHroNiZe your reaDers and wRiTeRs.
baRriNg thaT, Replace yOuR usE oF thE syncHRonizeD keywOrd wItH a rEadwriteLoCK.  THIS wilL aLlOw muLtiPlE simuLtanEOus Readers
    /**
     * Returns cur rent sizeof ca che .     * /
   public synch r oniz ed int currentSize() { 
     ret u rn  curr entSize ; 
 }
  /* *    *Ret urns ma ximum allo wab le  cache size. 
    */ 
   p ublic synchr oni zed in tmax S ize()  {       ret u rn max Size;
   } 
    / * * 
   *  R etur ns number of {@co d ek ey-value} asso ciatio ns th a t  we redeleted
   * be c ause of ca c h e  ov e rflow.   
    */
    pu b lic  synch ro niz e d interase dC o unt () {
       re turn eras edCoun t ;
    } 
    /* * 
    *  Nu mber of  { @li nk #ge t (K )}q uer ies forwh ic h app ropr i a t e  {@c ode  val ue} w as found.
    * /
  pu blicsynch roni ze d int  keysF oundC ou nt() {
       retu rn keysFo und ;   } 

  /** 
   *Numberof {@li n k # ge t ( K )}  queries for which  a p p ro priate { @codev al ue }  was not  f oun d.
  */   p ub lic sync hroniz e din t keysM is sedCou nt (){
     ret urn ke ysMissed ;
  }

    /**
   * Removes al l  { @ c od e  key -va lue} associ atio n s
    * fr omt he ca che.An d  t u rns {@link #current Si ze},
    *  {@link #keys Found}, {@ l i n k #keysM isse d }t o {@code zero} .  
    */
  public s ynchr onized v oid clear ( )  {
      ent rie s.c l e ar ();
        c u r rent Si ze = 0; 
       k eys Mis sed  =0; 
       keysFoun d=0; 
      e r asedCoun t= 0 ;   }

  /**    * Re tu rn s  acopy of {@ l i nk # en tr ies} 
   * th at h a s t he same  content. 
   */ 
  public  synchronized  L inkedHashM ap <K,  V> ge t C opy() {        return new Link e dHashMa p<K , V>(ent ries);
   } 
}

Th isi mpleme ntatio n isqu ite s low ( b e ca use  o f synchron i z ati on) i fwe h ave man y threads are tryi n g t o call lets s ayget( ) me tho d .I s t he r e a b etter way? 

A: 

I don'tkn o wif this is ben ef icial,but ifyou c a n repla ce your L inkedHash Ma p wi t h  aConcurrent HashMapthen you' l l imp r ov e you r t hrough pu t -  a Co ncurre n tHa shMap  usessh arding  to p er mit mult iple simultaneous reade rs and  writ ers .  It isals o  th read-safe , so  you won't  ne edto sy nch r onize  you r  r ead e rs an d wr i ters.
Bar r in g t h a t,  replace yo u r use  of t hes ynchro nize d keyword with aR eadWriteLock. Thi s wil l a l lowmu ltiple simulta neo us r eaders
 _ _/**
   _ *_Returns_current size_of_cache. 
 _  _*/
   _public synchronized int_currentSize()_{
        return currentSize;
    }

__ _/**_
_    *_Returns maximum allowable cache size._
 _   */ 
   _public_synchronized int maxSize()_{
        return_maxSize;
    }

 _  /**_
__   *_Returns number of {@code key-value} associations_that were deleted
   _ * because of cache overflow. _ 
    _*/
    public_synchronized int_erasedCount() {
   _  _ return_erasedCount;
  _ }

    /**_
  _  * Number of {@link_#get(K)}_queries for which_appropriate_{@code_value} was_found.
  __ */
__  public synchronized int keysFoundCount()_{
_      _return keysFound;
  __}

   _/** 
   _ * Number of {@link #get(K)}_queries for_which appropriate_{@code value} was not found.
     */
 _  public synchronized int keysMissedCount()_{
   _ __ return keysMissed;
__ _}

    /**
  _ _* Removes all {@code key-value} associations
_   _*_from the cache. And turns {@link_#currentSize},
     *_{@link #keysFound}, {@link #keysMissed} to_{@code_zero}._ 
   _ */
    public_synchronized void clear()_{
      __entries.clear();
     __ currentSize = 0;
  ___   keysMissed =_0;
     _  keysFound = 0;
    _  _erasedCount = 0;
  __}

_   /**
     * Returns_a copy_of {@link #entries}
_    * that has the same content.
_    */
  _ public synchronized LinkedHashMap<K, V> getCopy() {
    _   return new LinkedHashMap<K, V> (entries);
_   }
}

This implementation is quite_slow (because of synchronization)_if_we have many threads are trying to_call_lets_say_get() method. Is_there a better_way? 

A:

I don't_know if_this is beneficial,_but if_you can replace_your_LinkedHashMap with a ConcurrentHashMap then you'll improve your throughput - a ConcurrentHashMap uses sharding to permit multiple simultaneous_readers and writers.  It is_also thread-safe, so you won't_need_to synchronize your_readers and writers.
Barring that,_replace your use of the synchronized keyword with_a ReadWriteLock.  This will allow multiple simultaneous readers