Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-lucene-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 86221 invoked from network); 13 Jul 2004 14:21:28 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 13 Jul 2004 14:21:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 28588 invoked by uid 500); 13 Jul 2004 14:21:16 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-lucene-dev-archive@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 28417 invoked by uid 500); 13 Jul 2004 14:21:15 -0000 Mailing-List: contact lucene-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Help: List-Post: List-Id: "Lucene Developers List" Reply-To: "Lucene Developers List" Delivered-To: mailing list lucene-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 28291 invoked by uid 99); 13 Jul 2004 14:21:14 -0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.1 required=10.0 tests=NO_REAL_NAME,UPPERCASE_25_50 X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received: from [192.18.33.10] (HELO exchange.sun.com) (192.18.33.10) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.27.1) with SMTP; Tue, 13 Jul 2004 07:21:11 -0700 Received: (qmail 18456 invoked by uid 50); 13 Jul 2004 14:22:33 -0000 Date: 13 Jul 2004 14:22:33 -0000 Message-ID: <20040713142233.18455.qmail@nagoya.betaversion.org> From: bugzilla@apache.org To: lucene-dev@jakarta.apache.org Cc: Subject: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 30058] - Lucene Search has poor cpu utilization on a 4-CPU machine X-Virus-Checked: Checked X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT . ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30058 Lucene Search has poor cpu utilization on a 4-CPU machine otis@apache.org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution| |FIXED ------- Additional Comments From otis@apache.org 2004-07-13 14:22 ------- Changed in CVS, thanks. I don't have an environment multi-threaded environment suitable for testing this change, to ensure it doesn't break when multiple-threads access FieldInfos. Maybe somebody else does? Regardless, it looks like there should be no threading issues, since the only users of FieldInfos are classes that themselves ought to be thread-safe. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: lucene-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: lucene-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org