[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2649?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12915039#action_12915039
]
Ryan McKinley commented on LUCENE-2649:
---------------------------------------
Thanks Mike, I'll take a look and fix the small issues later tonight.
bq. I think we should hold off on backport to 3.x until we stabilize
LUCENE-2665?
+1, I think it makes sense to backport to 3.x when there is a clear upgrade
path.
bq. I think we have a synchronization issue on the call to validate?
Looks like it. There are two approaches we could take.
1. synchronize from the cache:
{code:java}
if( key.creator.shouldValidate() ) {
synchronized( key ) {
key.creator.validate( (T)value, reader);
}
}
{code}
2. make each creator responcible for validation. For example, the
DoubleValuesEntryCreator would look like:
{code:java}
@Override
public DoubleValues validate(DoubleValues entry, IndexReader reader) throws
IOException {
boolean ok = false;
if( hasOption(OPTION_CACHE_VALUES) ) {
ok = true;
if( entry.values == null ) {
synchronized( this ) {
if( entry.values == null ) {
fillDoubleValues(entry, reader, field);
}
}
}
}
if( hasOption(OPTION_CACHE_BITS) ) {
ok = true;
if( entry.valid == null ) {
synchronized( this ) {
if( entry.valid == null ) {
fillValidBits(entry, reader, field);
}
}
}
}
if( !ok ) {
throw new RuntimeException( "the config must cache values and/or bits" );
}
return entry;
}
{code}
That is a bit more complicated, but avoids synchonization when things are
valid. Thoughts?
bq. I think it's best if whoever gets there first, wins, for this case
Yes, this is the current behavior -- the validate method does not do anything:
{code:java}
public T validate(T entry, IndexReader reader) throws IOException {
// TODO? nothing? perhaps subsequent call with FASTER_BUT_MORE_RAM?
return entry;
}
{code}
- - - - - - - -
The other key behavior that we should note is that with
CachedArrayEntryCreators, if you pass a different parser for the same field, it
will give you an error. Previously this created two cache entries (and then
added something to the insanity log). If someone wants to do that, they could
override the XxxEntryCreator.getCacheKey() to return key that includes the
Parser. By default this seems like an error to me.
> FieldCache should include a BitSet for matching docs
> ----------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-2649
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2649
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Search
> Reporter: Ryan McKinley
> Assignee: Ryan McKinley
> Fix For: 4.0
>
> Attachments: LUCENE-2649-FieldCacheWithBitSet.patch,
> LUCENE-2649-FieldCacheWithBitSet.patch,
> LUCENE-2649-FieldCacheWithBitSet.patch,
> LUCENE-2649-FieldCacheWithBitSet.patch,
> LUCENE-2649-FieldCacheWithBitSet.patch, LUCENE-2649-FieldCacheWithBitSet.patch
>
>
> The FieldCache returns an array representing the values for each doc.
> However there is no way to know if the doc actually has a value.
> This should be changed to return an object representing the values *and* a
> BitSet for all valid docs.
--
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
