[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-7025?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
 ]

Ishan Chattopadhyaya closed LUCENE-7025.
----------------------------------------
    Resolution: Not A Problem

While I am seeing the dvGen (and fieldInfosGen) changing from underneath an 
open reader, I have been unable to establish any side effect due to this. The 
issue I was observing in SOLR-5944 turned out to be unrelated. Closing this for 
now.

> Already open IndexSearcher sees different DVs as commits are happening
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: LUCENE-7025
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-7025
>             Project: Lucene - Core
>          Issue Type: Bug
>            Reporter: Ishan Chattopadhyaya
>         Attachments: TestIndexSearcherStability.java
>
>
> I'm hitting an issue in SOLR-5944 whereby I am seeing the dvGen of a reader 
> underlying an open searcher is changing when parallel commits are happening. 
> This happens when the reader is opened from a writer, but doesn't happen when 
> the reader is opened directly from a directory.
> Also, *I think* I am, in Solr, seeing differences in DVs when parallel 
> threads make DV updates and do commits. In the attached test, I couldn't 
> reproduce this scenario, though.
> Questions:
> 1) Is it a bug, or by design, that the segment readers of an open 
> indexsearcher has their dvGens changing? (as according to the test attached).
> 2) Is it possible, as I think it is happening in Solr's 5944, that the DV 
> values themselves could change as a result of this parallel commit happening?
> Apologies, if I should have asked this at the user mailing list, instead of 
> opening an issue here.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org

Reply via email to