[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-667?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12618812#action_12618812
]
Yonik Seeley commented on SOLR-667:
-----------------------------------
bq. I only noticed some extremely stupid code where SOLR uses
_double_synchronization and AtomicLong inside:
A simple typo I think... a remnant from way back when changing what object was
being synchronized on. That's why I like explicit synchronization rather than
adding it to a method signature (easier to miss). I just fixed this to be
{code}
public Object put(Object key, Object value) {
synchronized (map) {
if (state == State.LIVE) {
stats.inserts.incrementAndGet();
}
// increment local inserts regardless of state???
// it does make it more consistent with the current size...
inserts++;
return map.put(key,value);
}
}
{code}
> Alternate LRUCache implementation
> ---------------------------------
>
> Key: SOLR-667
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-667
> Project: Solr
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Components: search
> Affects Versions: 1.3
> Reporter: Noble Paul
> Attachments: ConcurrentLRUCache.java
>
>
> The only available SolrCache i.e LRUCache is based on _LinkedHashMap_ which
> has _get()_ also synchronized. This can cause severe bottlenecks for faceted
> search. Any alternate implementation which can be faster/better must be
> considered.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
