lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jason Rutherglen (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] Commented: (LUCENE-2575) Concurrent byte and int block implementations
Date Wed, 29 Sep 2010 03:47:35 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2575?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12916005#action_12916005
] 

Jason Rutherglen commented on LUCENE-2575:
------------------------------------------

The last comment shows the brain is tired, ie, ignore it because
there would be too many pointers for the byte[]s. 

The comment prior however will probably work, and I think
there's a solution to excessive posting-upto int[] per reader
generation. If when getReader is called, we copy a writable
posting-upto array to a single master posting-upto parallel
array, then we will not need to create a unique int[] per
reader. The reason this would work is, past readers that are
iterating their term docs concurrently with the change to the
posting-upto array, will stop at the maxdoc anyways. This'll
be fun to implement.

> Concurrent byte and int block implementations
> ---------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: LUCENE-2575
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2575
>             Project: Lucene - Java
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: Index
>    Affects Versions: Realtime Branch
>            Reporter: Jason Rutherglen
>             Fix For: Realtime Branch
>
>         Attachments: LUCENE-2575.patch, LUCENE-2575.patch, LUCENE-2575.patch, LUCENE-2575.patch
>
>
> The current *BlockPool implementations aren't quite concurrent.
> We really need something that has a locking flush method, where
> flush is called at the end of adding a document. Once flushed,
> the newly written data would be available to all other reading
> threads (ie, postings etc). I'm not sure I understand the slices
> concept, it seems like it'd be easier to implement a seekable
> random access file like API. One'd seek to a given position,
> then read or write from there. The underlying management of byte
> arrays could then be hidden?

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


Mime
View raw message