On 12/19/06, robert engels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I would suggest that in order to even bring up "thread local issues"
in the future that the submitter supplies a pure Java NON-LUCENE test
case that demonstrates the problem (just as you would if reporting a
bug to Sun).
All of the "guessing" about what is going on is counter productive.
You can review the JDK source code, and you can run test cases.
There is nothing inherently broken in ThreadLocals, and people that
keep claiming that are only doing a disservice to the people that
make sure Java is a robust and reliable platform.
I didn't observe any maligning of java ThreadLocals in this thread--I
only noticed questions about lucene's use of them. I can understand
that you are worried about FUD, but I don't think that is happening
here, nor are anyone's efforts being disprespected.
-Mike
On Dec 19, 2006, at 1:41 PM, Yonik Seeley wrote:
> On 12/19/06, Otis Gospodnetic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I _think_ Robert is right and ThreadLocals are not the problem (I
>> tried getting rid of them, and replacing them with an instance var
>> last week, but run into problems with multi-threaded unit tests).
>
> If you want to try getting rid of the ThreadLocals, you can't replace
> with instance vars because the stuff put into the Threadlocals isn't
> thread safe.
> Replace the ThreadLocal stuff with the code that populated it in the
> first place.
>
> So for instance, in TermInfosReader, replace this
> private SegmentTermEnum getEnum() {
> SegmentTermEnum termEnum = (SegmentTermEnum)enumerators.get();
> if (termEnum == null) {
> termEnum = terms();
> enumerators.set(termEnum);
> }
> return termEnum;
> }
>
> With this:
> private SegmentTermEnum getEnum() {
> return terms()
> }
>
>
>> What I'm seeing while profiling (and in production) is the
>> accumulation of these:
>>
>> org.apache.lucene.search.FieldCacheImpl$Entry
>> org.apache.lucene.search.FieldCacheImpl$CreationPlaceholder
>>
>> This is related to http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-651
>> (the commit for that patch also happens to coincide with when I
>> started seeing the leak).
>
> I'll take a look into that. Solr hasn't sync'd to that version of
> Lucene yet, so we haven't seen this problem of course :-)
>
> -Yonik
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
