Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 57778 invoked from network); 15 Sep 2010 15:31:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by 140.211.11.9 with SMTP; 15 Sep 2010 15:31:01 -0000 Received: (qmail 74599 invoked by uid 500); 15 Sep 2010 15:31:00 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-dev-archive@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 74258 invoked by uid 500); 15 Sep 2010 15:30:58 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@lucene.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 74251 invoked by uid 99); 15 Sep 2010 15:30:57 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 15 Sep 2010 15:30:57 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2000.0 required=10.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received: from [140.211.11.22] (HELO thor.apache.org) (140.211.11.22) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 15 Sep 2010 15:30:55 +0000 Received: from thor (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by thor.apache.org (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o8FFUXk5006768 for ; Wed, 15 Sep 2010 15:30:33 GMT Message-ID: <25368403.205231284564633667.JavaMail.jira@thor> Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 11:30:33 -0400 (EDT) From: "Jason Rutherglen (JIRA)" To: dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: [jira] Commented: (LUCENE-2575) Concurrent byte and int block implementations In-Reply-To: <22431357.61641280379919116.JavaMail.jira@thor> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-JIRA-FingerPrint: 30527f35849b9dde25b450d4833f0394 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2575?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12909771#action_12909771 ] Jason Rutherglen commented on LUCENE-2575: ------------------------------------------ Because of the way byte slices work, eg, they need to pre-know the size of the slice before iterating on it, we can't simply point to the middle of a slice and read without probably iterating over the forwarding address. It seems the skip list will need to point to the beginning of a slice. This'll make the interval iteration in the RAM buffer skip list writer a little more complicated than today in that it'll need to store positions that are the start of byte slices. In other words, the intervals will be slightly uneven at times. > 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