[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2575?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12913403#action_12913403
]
Jason Rutherglen commented on LUCENE-2575:
------------------------------------------
A further question for this issue, in regards to copy-on-write
of the 1st dimension of the byte[][] array, will we want to keep
a count of references to the byte array, in the case of, lets
say multiple readers keeping references to each individual byte
array (the one with the bytes data). Assuming we will want to
continue to pool the byte[]s, I think we'll need to use
reference counting, or simply not pool the byte[]s after
flushing, in order to avoid overwriting of arrays.
> Concurrent byte and int block implementations
> ---------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-2575
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2575
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Index
> Affects Versions: Realtime Branch
> Reporter: Jason Rutherglen
> Fix For: Realtime Branch
>
> Attachments: LUCENE-2575.patch, LUCENE-2575.patch, LUCENE-2575.patch,
> LUCENE-2575.patch
>
>
> The current *BlockPool implementations aren't quite concurrent.
> We really need something that has a locking flush method, where
> flush is called at the end of adding a document. Once flushed,
> the newly written data would be available to all other reading
> threads (ie, postings etc). I'm not sure I understand the slices
> concept, it seems like it'd be easier to implement a seekable
> random access file like API. One'd seek to a given position,
> then read or write from there. The underlying management of byte
> arrays could then be hidden?
--
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: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
