[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-5783?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
 ]

Mark Miller updated SOLR-5783:
------------------------------

    Attachment: SOLR-5783.patch

LGTM. There was a spot it looks like you meant to use newName and used name and 
I had to fix a test to get the current tests to pass, but it all looks sound to 
me.

> Can we stop opening a new searcher when the index hasn't changed?
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: SOLR-5783
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-5783
>             Project: Solr
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>            Reporter: Hoss Man
>         Attachments: SOLR-5783.patch, SOLR-5783.patch
>
>
> I've been thinking recently about how/when we re-open searchers -- and what 
> the overhead of that is in terms of caches and what not -- even if the 
> underlying index hasn't changed.  
> The particular real world case that got me thinking about this recently is 
> when a deleteByQuery gets forwarded to all shards in a collection, and then 
> the subsequent (soft)Commit (either auto or explicit) opens a new searcher -- 
> even if that shard was completley uneffected by the delete.
> It got me wondering: why don't re-use the same searcher when the index is 
> unchanged?
> From what I can tell, we're basically 99% of the way there (in 
> {{<nrtMode/>}})...
> * IndexWriter.commit is already smart enough to short circut if there's 
> nothing to commit
> * SolrCore.openNewSearcher already uses DirectoryReader.openIfChanged to see 
> if the reader can be re-used.
> * for "realtime" purposes, SolrCore.openNewSearcher will return the existing 
> searcher if it exists and the DirectoryReader hasn't changed
> ...The only reason I could think of for not _always_ re-using the same 
> searcher when the underlying DirectoryReader is identical (ie: that last 
> bullet above) is in the situation where the "live" schema has changed -- but 
> that seems pretty trivial to account for.
> Is there any other reason why this wouldn't be a good idea for improving 
> performance?



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.1.5#6160)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org

Reply via email to