[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-17102?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
ASF GitHub Bot updated SOLR-17102:
----------------------------------
Labels: pull-request-available (was: )
> VersionBucket not needed
> ------------------------
>
> Key: SOLR-17102
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-17102
> Project: Solr
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: SolrCloud
> Reporter: David Smiley
> Assignee: David Smiley
> Priority: Major
> Labels: pull-request-available
> Time Spent: 2h 10m
> Remaining Estimate: 0h
>
> SolrCloud ensures that updates for the same document ID are done in the
> correct order internally in the face of possible re-orders during replication
> / log replay. In order to ensure the updates are applied consecutively, a
> lock is held on a hash of the ID for the doc. A hash is used to limit the
> number of total locks because the locks are pre-created in advance for the
> core (numVersionBuckets == 65k by default). The memory is non-negligible
> with many cores, and it introduces the possibility of collisions, especially
> at lower bucket counts if you configure it much lower.
> Here I propose doing away with a pre-created hashed bucket strategy.
> Instead, I propose more simply creating and GC'ing a lock per update being
> processed, and using a ConcurrentHashMap to hold those in-flight. This
> strategy is already used in
> org.apache.solr.util.OrderedExecutor.SparseStripedLock, more or less.
> Doing this is more tractable now that VersionBucket only holds a lock, not a
> version anymore – SOLR-17036
> The biggest challenge is that the code calls for the ability to use a
> Condition to away/notify, which means the solution can't just re-use
> SparseStripedLock above nor be quite so simple.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.10#820010)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@solr.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: issues-h...@solr.apache.org
