lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Shai Erera (JIRA)" <>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (LUCENE-4025) ReferenceManager.maybeRefresh should allow the caller to block
Date Mon, 30 Apr 2012 19:25:49 GMT


Shai Erera commented on LUCENE-4025:

bq. I'm torn here...

I'm also torn here :).

bq. Always blocking seems dangerous because "simple" apps, that call .maybeRefresh() from
searching threads, will suddenly see all search threads block when a reopen is happening

maybeRefresh says that you should call this *periodically*. I consider SearcherManager kind
of advanced API. Calling maybeRefresh() on every search is like calling IndexReader.openIfChanged
before every search. If we need to, let's document the implications of the method.

Not blocking might be buggy, while blocking might affect your performance. I think that the
performance issue is really and edge case of stupidity, while the former is a simple expectation.
maybeRefresh documents that if it returns false, it might be that the next acquire won't return
the most up-to-date IndexSearcher, but it doesn't give you any way to ensure that.

As for the extra API, can we start by unnecessarily complicating the API? It looks to me that
the API is clear with plenty of sample code and documentation (Mike, you even wrote a couple
of blog posts about it). It's just a matter of semantics and if we tell people to call maybeRefresh
periodically, then let's help them by ensuring this call does something.
> ReferenceManager.maybeRefresh should allow the caller to block
> --------------------------------------------------------------
>                 Key: LUCENE-4025
>                 URL:
>             Project: Lucene - Java
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: core/search
>            Reporter: Shai Erera
>            Priority: Minor
>             Fix For: 4.0
> ReferenceManager.maybeRefresh() returns a boolean today, specifying whether the maybeRefresh
logic was executed by the caller or not. If it's false, it means that another thread is currently
refreshing and the call returns immediately.
> I think that that's inconvenient to the caller. I.e., if you wanted to do something like:
> {code}
> writer.commit();
> searcherManager.maybeRefresh();
> searcherManager.acquire();
> {code}
> It'd be better if you could guarantee that when the maybeRefresh() call returned, the
follow on acquire() will return a refreshed IndexSearcher. Even if you omit the commit instruction,
it'd be good if you can guarantee that.
> I don't quite see the benefit of having the caller thread not block if there's another
thread currently refreshing. In, I believe, most cases, you'd anyway have just one thread
calling maybeRefresh(). Even if not, the only benefit of not blocking is if you have commit()
followed by maybeRefresh() logic done by some threads, while other threads acquire searchers
- maybe then you wouldn't care if another thread is currently doing the refresh?
> Actually, I tend to think that not blocking is buggy? I mean, what if two threads do
commit() + maybeRefresh(). The first thread finishes commit, enters maybeRefresh(), acquires
the lock and reopens the Reader. Then the second thread does its commit(), enters maybeRefresh,
fails to obtain the lock and exits. Its changes won't be exposed by SM until the next maybeRefresh()
is called.
> So it looks to me like current logic may be buggy in that sense?

This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators:!default.jspa
For more information on JIRA, see:


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message