[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1265?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12590650#action_12590650
]
Karl Wettin commented on LUCENE-1265:
-------------------------------------
Otis says:
bq. Not sure if this email got answered. That's most likely due to the
synchronized isDeleted call:
bq. ./org/apache/lucene/index/SegmentReader.java: public synchronized boolean
isDeleted(int n) {
> Identify bottleneck associated with not pooling searchers
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-1265
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1265
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: Task
> Components: Search
> Reporter: Karl Wettin
>
> There have been multiple reports suggesting synchronization problems due to
> great search performace boost while pooling searchers under heavy load.
> I think this should be confirmed. Then identified and fixed, alternatively
> add such a pool to the code base.
> http://www.nabble.com/Multiple-searchers-%28Was%3A-CachingWrapperFilter%3A-why-cache-per-IndexReader-%29-td14916124.html#a14997611
> http://www.nabble.com/Solid-State-Drives-vs.-RAMDirectory-td16025864.html
> http://wiki.apache.org/lucene-java/ImproveSearchingSpeed
> Use one instance of IndexSearcher.
> Share a single IndexSearcher across queries and across threads in your
> application.
--
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]
