2011/4/1 Axel Morgner <[email protected]> > Using 1.3-M03 here. I also try to reproduce it with an isolated test. > Will keep you informed about the result. > > Much appreciated Alex
> Axel > > On 01.04.2011 11:01, Mattias Persson wrote: > > 2011/4/1 Michael Hunger<[email protected]> > > > >> What about the line in the if that doesn't execute the block, if > >> index-hits .hasNext() returns false? > >> > >> Does this close the underlying structures ? > >> > >>>> if (hits != null&& hits.iterator().hasNext()) { > > As of some milestone back it closes the iterator if there are no results > in > > it. Which version of neo4j are you running Alex? > > > >> and here 2 iterators are opened? perhaps this might be a problem, one > for > >> the if, the second for the for-each loop > >> > > Actually IndexHits is cheating where #iterator() {return this;} so > there's > > only one iterator. > > > > As a note I can say that I'm currently running a test with 30 threads, > > randomly modifying/querying an index where some queries are looped > through > > and some just a bit and then closed manually. Also getSingle() is used > > randomly. And as far as I can see, after 10 minutes of such a test > running > > the number of open files is kept it a steady low. I just cannot reproduce > > this on the latest milestone. > > _______________________________________________ > Neo4j mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.neo4j.org/mailman/listinfo/user > -- Mattias Persson, [[email protected]] Hacker, Neo Technology www.neotechnology.com _______________________________________________ Neo4j mailing list [email protected] https://lists.neo4j.org/mailman/listinfo/user
