[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-26973?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=18037703#comment-18037703
]
Ignite TC Bot commented on IGNITE-26973:
----------------------------------------
{panel:title=Branch: [pull/12507/head] Base: [master] : No blockers
found!|borderStyle=dashed|borderColor=#ccc|titleBGColor=#D6F7C1}{panel}
{panel:title=Branch: [pull/12507/head] Base: [master] : No new tests
found!|borderStyle=dashed|borderColor=#ccc|titleBGColor=#F7D6C1}{panel}
[TeamCity *--> Run :: All*
Results|https://ci2.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=8698581&buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_RunAll]
> IndexProcessor: ConcurrentHashMap under RW-lock; reconsider redundant idxDefs
> map
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: IGNITE-26973
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-26973
> Project: Ignite
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Vsevolod Kovalev
> Assignee: Vsevolod Kovalev
> Priority: Major
> Time Spent: 20m
> Remaining Estimate: 0h
>
> {{_*IndexProcessor*_}} guards access with a {_}{{ReentrantReadWriteLock}}{_},
> yet both {{_cacheToIdx_}} and {{_idxDefs_}} are {{{}_ConcurrentHashMap_{}}}.
> This likely adds overhead without benefit.
> Additionally, {{_idxDefs_}} ({{{}_UUID → IndexDefinition_{}}}) appears
> redundant because Index already holds its {{_IndexDefinition_}} and exposes
> the {{{}_UUID_{}}}.
> *Action items:*
> * Audit read/write paths to confirm lock coverage.
> * If confirmed, replace both with plain HashMap.
> * Evaluate removing idxDefs in favor of retrieving IndexDefinition from
> Index; refactor call sites if feasible.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.10#820010)
