Le 6 août 2011 à 02:09, Yonik Seeley a écrit :
On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 7:30 PM, Paul Libbrecht p...@hoplahup.net wrote:
my solr is coming to slowly reach its memory limits (8Gb) and the stats
displays me a reasonable fieldCache (1800) but 4820 searchers. That sounds a
bit much to me, each
On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 11:31 AM, Paul Libbrecht p...@hoplahup.net wrote:
Le 6 août 2011 à 02:09, Yonik Seeley a écrit :
On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 7:30 PM, Paul Libbrecht p...@hoplahup.net wrote:
my solr is coming to slowly reach its memory limits (8Gb) and the stats
displays me a reasonable
Le 6 août 2011 à 17:37, Yonik Seeley a écrit :
I have a custom query-handler and a custom response writer.
Do you always retrieve the searcher via
SolrQueryRequest.getSearcher()? If so, there should be no problem...
but if you call SolrCore.getSearcher(), that is where leaks can happen
if
On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 1:35 PM, Paul Libbrecht p...@hoplahup.net wrote:
Le 6 août 2011 à 17:37, Yonik Seeley a écrit :
I have a custom query-handler and a custom response writer.
Do you always retrieve the searcher via
SolrQueryRequest.getSearcher()? If so, there should be no problem...
Le 6 août 2011 à 19:52, Yonik Seeley a écrit :
I've been using the following:
rb.req.getCore().getSearcher().get().getReader()
Bingo! Code should never do core.getSearcher().get()
since core.getSearcher returns a reference that must be decremented
when you are done.
Using
This is convincing me... I'd like to experiment and close.
So, how can I be sure this is the right thing?
I would have thought adding a document and committing would have created a
Searcher in my current usage but I do not see the reference list actually being
enlarged on my development
On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 2:17 PM, Paul Libbrecht p...@hoplahup.net wrote:
This is convincing me... I'd like to experiment and close.
So, how can I be sure this is the right thing?
I would have thought adding a document and committing would have created a
Searcher in my current usage but I do
Le 6 août 2011 à 20:21, Yonik Seeley a écrit :
It is creating a new searcher, but then closing the old searcher after
all currently running requests are done using it (that's what the
reference counting is for).
After the searcher is closed, it's removed from the list.
Not if using:
PS: why is RefCounted not using SoftReference?? I think I would not see my bug
then.
On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 2:30 PM, Paul Libbrecht p...@hoplahup.net wrote:
Le 6 août 2011 à 20:21, Yonik Seeley a écrit :
It is creating a new searcher, but then closing the old searcher after
all currently running requests are done using it (that's what the
reference counting is for).
After
Le 7 août 2011 à 01:10, Yonik Seeley a écrit :
Oh, I see... you want to re-create the bug so you can see when it is fixed?
To trigger the bug, you need to hit a code path that uses the
getCore().getSearcher().get() code.
So first send a request that hits that buggy code, then add a doc and
Hello list,
my solr is coming to slowly reach its memory limits (8Gb) and the stats
displays me a reasonable fieldCache (1800) but 4820 searchers. That sounds a
bit much to me, each has been opened in its own time since the last restart
about two weeks ago.
What could be wrong in my
On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 7:30 PM, Paul Libbrecht p...@hoplahup.net wrote:
my solr is coming to slowly reach its memory limits (8Gb) and the stats
displays me a reasonable fieldCache (1800) but 4820 searchers. That sounds a
bit much to me, each has been opened in its own time since the last
13 matches
Mail list logo
