[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1720?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12725386#action_12725386
]
Jason Rutherglen commented on LUCENE-1720:
------------------------------------------
Maybe we can benchmark this approach to see if it slows down
queries due to the the Thread.currentThread and hash lookup? As
this would go into 3.0 (?) maybe we can look at how to change
the Lucene API such that we pass in an argument to the
IndexReader methods where the timeout may be checked for?
> TimeLimitedIndexReader and associated utility class
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-1720
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1720
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Components: Index
> Reporter: Mark Harwood
> Assignee: Mark Harwood
> Priority: Minor
> Attachments: ActivityTimedOutException.java,
> ActivityTimeMonitor.java, TestTimeLimitedIndexReader.java,
> TimeLimitedIndexReader.java
>
>
> An alternative to TimeLimitedCollector that has the following advantages:
> 1) Any reader activity can be time-limited rather than just single searches
> e.g. the document retrieve phase.
> 2) Times out faster (i.e. runaway queries such as fuzzies detected quickly
> before last "collect" stage of query processing)
> Uses new utility timeout class that is independent of IndexReader.
> Initial contribution includes a performance test class but not had time as
> yet to work up a formal Junit test.
> TimeLimitedIndexReader is coded as JDK1.5 but can easily be undone.
--
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: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
