Mailing-List: contact java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
Message-ID: <2113499016.283301268719228102.JavaMail.jira@brutus.apache.org>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 06:00:28 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Michael Busch (JIRA)" <jira@apache.org>
To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: [jira] Commented: (LUCENE-2312) Search on IndexWriter's RAM Buffer
In-Reply-To: <1090383611.238721268435487244.JavaMail.jira@brutus.apache.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2312?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12845726#action_12845726 ] 

Michael Busch commented on LUCENE-2312:
---------------------------------------

{quote}
A quick and easy way to solve this is to use a read write lock
on the byte pool?
{quote}

If you use a RW lock then the writer thread will block all reader threads while it's making changes.  The writer thread will be making changes all the time in a real-time search environment.  The contention will kill performance I'm sure.  RW lock is only faster than mutual exclusion lock if writes are infrequent, as mentioned in the javadocs of ReadWriteLock.java

> Search on IndexWriter's RAM Buffer
> ----------------------------------
>
>                 Key: LUCENE-2312
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2312
>             Project: Lucene - Java
>          Issue Type: New Feature
>          Components: Search
>    Affects Versions: 3.0.1
>            Reporter: Jason Rutherglen
>            Assignee: Michael Busch
>             Fix For: 3.1
>
>
> In order to offer user's near realtime search, without incurring
> an indexing performance penalty, we can implement search on
> IndexWriter's RAM buffer. This is the buffer that is filled in
> RAM as documents are indexed. Currently the RAM buffer is
> flushed to the underlying directory (usually disk) before being
> made searchable. 
> Todays Lucene based NRT systems must incur the cost of merging
> segments, which can slow indexing. 
> Michael Busch has good suggestions regarding how to handle deletes using max doc ids.  
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2293?focusedCommentId=12841923&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels%3Acomment-tabpanel#action_12841923
> The area that isn't fully fleshed out is the terms dictionary,
> which needs to be sorted prior to queries executing. Currently
> IW implements a specialized hash table. Michael B has a
> suggestion here: 
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2293?focusedCommentId=12841915&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels%3Acomment-tabpanel#action_12841915

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org