Mike,
I revamped the DirectUpdateHandler2 into DirectUpdateHandler3 in SOLR-1155,
probably ready enough for your review to see if locking makes sense for
current Lucene behavior.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1155
--j
Mike Klaas wrote:
>
> On 7-May-09, at 10:36 AM, jayson.minard wrote:
>
>>
>> Does every thread really need to notify the update handler of the
>> commit
>> interval/threshold being reached, or really just the first thread that
>> notices should send the signal, or better yet a background commit
>> watching
>> thread so that no "foreground" thread has to pay attention at all.
>> That is
>> assuming they wouldn't need to block like they are now for a reason
>> I'm
>> likely unaware of...
>
> This is due to the way Lucene was designed (although recent
> improvements in Lucene mean we can do better here). See the recent
> thread "Autocommit blocking adds?" on solr-user for a related
> discussion.
>
> As the person who first wrote the multi-threaded-ness of DUH2, I'd be
> very happy to promptly review any improvements made to it.
>
> -Mike
>
>
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/DirectUpdateHandler2-threads-pile-up-behind-scheduleCommitWithin-tp23431691p23472391.html
Sent from the Solr - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
|