[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-4909?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13680414#comment-13680414
]
Mark Miller commented on SOLR-4909:
-----------------------------------
It seems like it would be nicer if the solution worked for 'repeaters' as well,
but that could solve things for the slave case - the likely side effects are
probably confusion if a user see the numbers are different and they should
align - i dont like that so much. But currently you have to commit or reopen
the writer to pick up the newest commit.
> Solr and IndexReader Re-opening on Replication Slave
> ----------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: SOLR-4909
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-4909
> Project: Solr
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: replication (java), search
> Affects Versions: 4.3
> Reporter: Michael Garski
> Fix For: 5.0, 4.4
>
> Attachments: SOLR-4909-demo.patch
>
>
> I've been experimenting with caching filter data per segment in Solr using a
> CachingWrapperFilter & FilteredQuery within a custom query parser (as
> suggested by [[email protected]] in SOLR-3763) and encountered situations
> where the value of getCoreCacheKey() on the AtomicReader for each segment can
> change for a given segment on disk when the searcher is reopened. As
> CachingWrapperFilter uses the value of the segment's getCoreCacheKey() as the
> key in the cache, there are situations where the data cached on that segment
> is not reused when the segment on disk is still part of the index. This
> affects the Lucene field cache and field value caches as well as they are
> cached per segment.
> When Solr first starts it opens the searcher's underlying DirectoryReader in
> StandardIndexReaderFactory.newReader by calling
> DirectoryReader.open(indexDir, termInfosIndexDivisor), and the reader is
> subsequently reopened in SolrCore.openNewSearcher by calling
> DirectoryReader.openIfChanged(currentReader, writer.get(), true). The act of
> reopening the reader with the writer when it was first opened without a
> writer results in the value of getCoreCacheKey() changing on each of the
> segments even though some of the segments have not changed. Depending on the
> role of the Solr server, this has different effects:
> * On a SolrCloud node or free-standing index and search server the segment
> cache is invalidated during the first DirectoryReader reopen - subsequent
> reopens use the same IndexWriter instance and as such the value of
> getCoreCacheKey() on each segment does not change so the cache is retained.
> * For a master-slave replication set up the segment cache invalidation occurs
> on the slave during every replication as the index is reopened using a new
> IndexWriter instance which results in the value of getCoreCacheKey() changing
> on each segment when the DirectoryReader is reopened using a different
> IndexWriter instance.
> I can think of a few approaches to alter the re-opening behavior to allow
> reuse of segment level caches in both cases, and I'd like to get some input
> on other ideas before digging in:
> * To change the cloud node/standalone first commit issue it might be possible
> to create the UpdateHandler and IndexWriter before the DirectoryReader, and
> use the writer to open the reader. There is a comment in the SolrCore
> constructor by [[email protected]] that the searcher should be opened before
> the update handler so that may not be an acceptable approach.
> * To change the behavior of a slave in a replication set up, one solution
> would be to not open a writer from the SnapPuller when the new index is
> retrieved if the core is enabled as a slave only. The writer is needed on a
> server configured as a master & slave that is functioning as a replication
> repeater so downstream slaves can see the changes in the index and retrieve
> them.
> I'll attach a unit test that demonstrates the behavior of reopening the
> DirectoryReader and it's effects on the value of getCoreCacheKey. My
> assumption is that the behavior of Lucene during the various reader reopen
> operations is correct and that the changes are necessary on the Solr side of
> things.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
