----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/74087/#review224624 -----------------------------------------------------------
security-admin/src/main/java/org/apache/ranger/patch/PatchForSolrSvcDefAndPoliciesUpdate_J10055.java Lines 141 (patched) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/74087/#comment313429> If updateSolrSvcDef() updates just one service-definition, does it really touch a lot of objects thereby causing a large transaction? If not, please review if this change is needed. - Abhay Kulkarni On Aug. 13, 2022, 9:27 p.m., Pradeep Agrawal wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/74087/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Aug. 13, 2022, 9:27 p.m.) > > > Review request for ranger, bhavik patel, Dhaval Shah, Abhay Kulkarni, Madhan > Neethiraj, Mehul Parikh, Ramesh Mani, Sailaja Polavarapu, and Velmurugan > Periasamy. > > > Bugs: RANGER-3857 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/RANGER-3857 > > > Repository: ranger > > > Description > ------- > > It was observed during ranger upgrades that the java patch J10055 taking > several hours while trying to update the Solr service def to the db. > This happens only when a solr service is having lot of policies. > Therefore, persisting the updates immediately using transaction manager to > boost performance. > > > Diffs > ----- > > > security-admin/src/main/java/org/apache/ranger/patch/PatchForSolrSvcDefAndPoliciesUpdate_J10055.java > 4684923ca > > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/74087/diff/1/ > > > Testing > ------- > > Installed ranger 2.2 and created 3k Ranger policies for solr service. > Build Ranger master with this patch and untar it then provided same db config > used for previous install. > call the setup script. > without the patch it was taking 3 hours, after the patch its taking 3 minutes > only. > > > Thanks, > > Pradeep Agrawal > >
