[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2779?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12966376#action_12966376
 ] 

Shay Banon commented on LUCENE-2779:
------------------------------------

  If the assumption still stands that an IndexInput will not be opened on a 
"writing" / unclosed IndexOutput, then RAMFile can also be improved when it 
comes to concurrency. The RAMOutputStream can maintain its own list of buffers 
(simple array list, no need to sync), and only when it gets closed, initialize 
the respective RAMFile with the list. This means most of the synchronize 
aspects of RAMFile can be removed. Also, on RAMFile, lastModified can be made 
volatile, and remove the sync on its respective methods.

> Use ConcurrentHashMap in RAMDirectory
> -------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: LUCENE-2779
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2779
>             Project: Lucene - Java
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: Store
>            Reporter: Shai Erera
>            Assignee: Shai Erera
>            Priority: Minor
>             Fix For: 3.1, 4.0
>
>         Attachments: LUCENE-2779-backwardsfix.patch, LUCENE-2779.patch, 
> LUCENE-2779.patch, LUCENE-2779.patch, LUCENE-2779.patch, TestCHM.java
>
>
> RAMDirectory synchronizes on its instance in many places to protect access to 
> map of RAMFiles, in addition to updating the sizeInBytes member. In many 
> places the sync is done for 'read' purposes, while only in few places we need 
> 'write' access. This looks like a perfect use case for ConcurrentHashMap
> Also, syncing around sizeInBytes is unnecessary IMO, since it's an AtomicLong 
> ...
> I'll post a patch shortly.

-- 
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: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]

Reply via email to