Thanks for bringing closure, Boris. Mike McCandless
http://blog.mikemccandless.com On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 7:13 AM Boris Petrov <boris_pet...@live.com> wrote: > Hello, > > OK, so actually this appears to be a bug in our code - Lucene is searching > correctly, we were doing something wrong with the result after that. Sorry > all for the confusion! Thanks for the support! > ________________________________ > From: Erick Erickson <erickerick...@gmail.com> > Sent: Friday, November 9, 2018 6:16 PM > To: java-user > Subject: Re: SearcherManager not seeing changes in IndexWriteral and > > You might be able to do this with a couple of threads in a single > program, but certainly up to you. > > Best, > Erick > On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 7:47 AM Boris Petrov <boris_pet...@live.com> wrote: > > > > Well, while debugging I put a bunch of println's which showed the > > expected order. And, besides, I've written the code, I know that writing > > to the index happens way before searching in it - the test makes sure of > > that. > > > > If you think there indeed might be some problem, I'll try to reproduce > > it in a small example. But I will try only the obvious (which perhaps > > you've tried a million times and have tests for) - I'll have one thread > > write to the index, another (which starts after the first) search in it > > and I'll create a bash script that runs the program until it fails (what > > I currently do with our test). I'll do this beginning of next week. > > > > Thank you for the support! > > > > On 11/9/18 5:37 PM, Erick Erickson wrote: > > > If it's hard to do in a single thread, how about timestamping the > > > events to insure that they happen in the expected order? > > > > > > That would verify the sequencing is happening as you expect and > > > _still_ not see the expected docs... > > > > > > Assuming it does fail, do you think you could reduce it to a > > > multi-threaded test case? > > > > > > Best, > > > Erick > > > On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 7:03 AM Boris Petrov <boris_pet...@live.com> > wrote: > > >> Well, it's a bit involved to try it in a single thread as I've > > >> oversimplified the example. But as far as I understand this should > work, > > >> right? So something else is wrong? Committing the writer and then > > >> "maybeRefreshBlocking" should be enough to have the changes visible, > yes? > > >> > > >> On 11/9/18 4:45 PM, Michael Sokolov wrote: > > >>> That should work, I think, but if you are serializing these threads > so > > >>> that they cannot run concurrently, maybe try running both operations > > >>> in a single thread, at least as a test. > > >>> On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 9:16 AM Boris Petrov <boris_pet...@live.com> > wrote: > > >>>> If you mean the synchronization of the threads, it is not in the > > >>>> example, but Thread 2 is *started* after Thread 1 finished > executing the > > >>>> code that I gave as an example. So there is happens-before between > them. > > >>>> If you mean synchronization on the Lucene level - isn't that what > > >>>> "maybeRefreshBlocking" should do? > > >>>> > > >>>> On 11/9/18 3:29 PM, Michael Sokolov wrote: > > >>>>> I'm not seeing anything there that would synchronize, or > serialize, the > > >>>>> read after the write and commit. Did you expect that for some > reason? > > >>>>> > > >>>>> On Fri, Nov 9, 2018, 6:00 AM Boris Petrov <boris_pet...@live.com > wrote: > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> Hi all, > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> I'm using Lucene version 7.5.0. We have a test that does > something like: > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Thread 1: > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Field idStringField = new StringField("id", id, > > >>>>>> Field.Store.YES); > > >>>>>> Field contentsField = new TextField("contents", > reader); > > >>>>>> Document document = new Document(); > > >>>>>> document.add(idStringField); > > >>>>>> document.add(contentsField); > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> writer.updateDocument(new Term(ID_FIELD, id), > document); > > >>>>>> writer.flush(); // not sure this flush is needed? > > >>>>>> writer.commit(); > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Thread 2: > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> searchManager.maybeRefreshBlocking(); > > >>>>>> IndexSearcher searcher = searchManager.acquire(); > > >>>>>> try { > > >>>>>> QueryParser parser = new QueryParser("contents", > analyzer); > > >>>>>> Query luceneQuery = parser.parse(queryText); > > >>>>>> ScoreDoc[] hits = searcher.search(luceneQuery, > > >>>>>> 50).scoreDocs; > > >>>>>> } finally { > > >>>>>> searchManager.release(searcher); > > >>>>>> } > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Thread 1 happens before Thread 2. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Sometimes, only sometimes, the commit from thread 1 is not > *immediately* > > >>>>>> visible in Thread 2. If I put a "Thread.sleep(1000)" it always > works. > > >>>>>> Without it, sometimes the search is empty. I'm not sure if I'm > doing > > >>>>>> something wrong or this is a bug? > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Thanks! > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > > >> For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-h...@lucene.apache.org > > >> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > > > For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-h...@lucene.apache.org > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-h...@lucene.apache.org > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-h...@lucene.apache.org > >
