[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-9524?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15499113#comment-15499113
 ] 

Yonik Seeley commented on SOLR-9524:
------------------------------------

bq. We didn't have any caching till now. So, it is not going to be any worse 
than what it used to be

It was cached before SOLR-9310, so if everyone was in sync (say coming back up 
from a reboot, or after electing a new leader), it could certainly be more 
expensive than it was.


> SolrIndexSearcher.getIndexFingerprint uses dubious sunchronization
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: SOLR-9524
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-9524
>             Project: Solr
>          Issue Type: Bug
>      Security Level: Public(Default Security Level. Issues are Public) 
>    Affects Versions: 6.3
>            Reporter: Mike Drob
>         Attachments: SOLR-9524.patch
>
>
> In SOLR-9310 we added more code that does some fingerprint caching in 
> SolrIndexSearcher. However, the synchronization looks like it could be made 
> more efficient and may have issues with correctness.
> https://github.com/apache/lucene-solr/blob/branch_6x/solr/core/src/java/org/apache/solr/search/SolrIndexSearcher.java#L2371-L2385
> Some of the issues:
> * Double checked locking needs use of volatile variables to ensure proper 
> memory semantics.
> * sync on a ConcurrentHashMap is usually a code smell



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

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

Reply via email to