[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1316?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12608189#action_12608189
]
Yonik Seeley commented on LUCENE-1316:
--------------------------------------
bq. 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()
Right... it's about the memory barrier.
The reality is that there is normally a need for higher level synchronization
anyway. That's why it was always silly for things like StringBuffer to be
synchronized.
bq. assuming we fix that then it seems like the original issue is back to
square one: synchro bottlenecks when there are no deletions.
A scorer could just check once when initialized... there's never been any
guarantees about in-flight queries immediately seeing deleted docs changes -
now that *really* doesn't make sense. TermScorer grabs the whole bit vector at
the start and never checks again.
> 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]
