[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCR-1213?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12545813
 ] 

Ard Schrijvers commented on JCR-1213:
-------------------------------------

If you can/want to attach your test as well, I can tomorrow evening do some or 
the same tests as well (Also look at some profiling memory snapshots and some 
processor hotspots.....just out curiosity. Might be nice to see the getParent 
taking 99% cpu (!!! I saw this actually after a gc() ) being really downgraded 
with your patch and mine, and see if I can spot differcences )

> UUIDDocId cache does not work properly because of weakReferences in 
> combination with new instance for combined indexreader 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: JCR-1213
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCR-1213
>             Project: Jackrabbit
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: query
>    Affects Versions: 1.3.3
>            Reporter: Ard Schrijvers
>             Fix For: 1.4
>
>         Attachments: JCR-1213-mreutegg.patch, JCR-1213.patch
>
>
> Queries that use ChildAxisQuery or DescendantSelfAxisQuery make use of 
> getParent() functions to know wether the parents are correct and if the 
> result is allowed. The getParent() is called recursively for every hit, and 
> can become very expensive. Hence, in DocId.UUIDDocId, the parents are cached. 
> Currently,  docId.UUIDDocId's are cached by having a WeakRefence to the 
> CombinedIndexReader, but, this CombinedIndexReader is recreated all the time, 
> implying that a gc() is allowed to remove the 'expensive' cache.
> A much better solution is to not have a weakReference to the 
> CombinedIndexReader, but to a reference of each indexreader segment. This 
> means, that in getParent(int n) in SearchIndex the return 
> return id.getDocumentNumber(this) needs to be replaced by return 
> id.getDocumentNumber(subReaders[i]); and something similar in 
> CachingMultiReader. 
> That is all. Obviously, when a node/property is added/removed/changed, some 
> parts of the cached DocId.UUIDDocId will be invalid, but mainly small indexes 
> are updated frequently, which obviously are less expensive to recompute.

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

Reply via email to