[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1316?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12608183#action_12608183
]
Hoss Man commented on LUCENE-1316:
----------------------------------
bq. if thread A deleted a document, and then thread B checked if it was
deleted, thread B was guaranteed to see that it was in fact deleted.
Hmmm.... i'll take your word for it, but i don't follow the rational: the
current synchronization just ensured that either the isDeleted() call will
complete before the delete() call started or vice versa -- but you have no
guarantee that thread B would run after thread A and get true. .... unless...
is your point that without synchronization on the null check there's no
garuntee that B will ever see the change to deletedDocs even if it does execute
after delete() ?
either way: robert's point about hasDeletions() needing to be synchronized
seems like a bigger issue -- isn't that a bug in the current implementation?
assuming we fix that then it seems like the original issue is back to square
one: synchro bottlenecks when there are no deletions.
> Avoidable synchronization bottleneck in MatchAlldocsQuery$MatchAllScorer
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-1316
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1316
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Query/Scoring
> Affects Versions: 2.3
> Environment: All
> Reporter: Todd Feak
> Priority: Minor
> Attachments: MatchAllDocsQuery.java
>
> Original Estimate: 1h
> Remaining Estimate: 1h
>
> The isDeleted() method on IndexReader has been mentioned a number of times as
> a potential synchronization bottleneck. However, the reason this bottleneck
> occurs is actually at a higher level that wasn't focused on (at least in the
> threads I read).
> In every case I saw where a stack trace was provided to show the lock/block,
> higher in the stack you see the MatchAllScorer.next() method. In Solr
> paricularly, this scorer is used for "NOT" queries. We saw incredibly poor
> performance (order of magnitude) on our load tests for NOT queries, due to
> this bottleneck. The problem is that every single document is run through
> this isDeleted() method, which is synchronized. Having an optimized index
> exacerbates this issues, as there is only a single SegmentReader to
> synchronize on, causing a major thread pileup waiting for the lock.
> By simply having the MatchAllScorer see if there have been any deletions in
> the reader, much of this can be avoided. Especially in a read-only
> environment for production where you have slaves doing all the high load
> searching.
> I modified line 67 in the MatchAllDocsQuery
> FROM:
> if (!reader.isDeleted(id)) {
> TO:
> if (!reader.hasDeletions() || !reader.isDeleted(id)) {
> In our micro load test for NOT queries only, this was a major performance
> improvement. We also got the same query results. I don't believe this will
> improve the situation for indexes that have deletions.
> Please consider making this adjustment for a future bug fix release.
--
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]
