[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-997?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12565906#action_12565906
]
Sean Timm commented on LUCENE-997:
----------------------------------
Paul,
I think that if we were to use System.currentTimeMillis(), we would eschew the
TimerThread as Doron suggests in his Dec. 15 comment. I haven't seen any
performance issues with System.currentTimeMillis().
As far as 200ms, I think that is too large of a default resolution (and with
the current implementation it is not configurable). With a 200 ms resolution,
a query with a 1 second time allowed could timeout in 800 ms, and one with a
time allowed of 500 ms could timeout in 300 ms. I think it is much worse to
timeout a query early than to timeout late.
> Add search timeout support to Lucene
> ------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-997
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-997
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Reporter: Sean Timm
> Priority: Minor
> Attachments: HitCollectorTimeoutDecorator.java,
> LuceneTimeoutTest.java, LuceneTimeoutTest.java, MyHitCollector.java,
> timeout.patch, timeout.patch, timeout.patch, timeout.patch, timeout.patch,
> TimerThreadTest.java
>
>
> This patch is based on Nutch-308.
> This patch adds support for a maximum search time limit. After this time is
> exceeded, the search thread is stopped, partial results (if any) are returned
> and the total number of results is estimated.
> This patch tries to minimize the overhead related to time-keeping by using a
> version of safe unsynchronized timer.
> This was also discussed in an e-mail thread.
> http://www.nabble.com/search-timeout-tf3410206.html#a9501029
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
