[jira] Updated: (SOLR-256) Stats via JMX

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-256?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Shalin Shekhar Mangar updated SOLR-256: --- Attachment: SOLR-256.patch Changes * Changed the type of the SolrInfoMBeans to the

[jira] Updated: (SOLR-515) SimilarityFactory patch: facilitate parameterizable Similarity implementations

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-515?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Grant Ingersoll updated SOLR-515: - Priority: Minor (was: Major) change to minor SimilarityFactory patch: facilitate

[jira] Updated: (SOLR-256) Stats via JMX

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-256?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Shalin Shekhar Mangar updated SOLR-256: --- Attachment: SOLR-256.patch No changes, just synchronizing with the changes in SolrCore

[jira] Reopened: (SOLR-267) log handler + query + hits

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-267?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Grant Ingersoll reopened SOLR-267: -- Something isn't quite right with regards to the responseHeader. log handler + query + hits

[jira] Commented: (SOLR-267) log handler + query + hits

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-267?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=12590088#action_12590088 ] Grant Ingersoll commented on SOLR-267: -- OK, two things: 1. The current commit adds

[jira] Updated: (SOLR-267) log handler + query + hits

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-267?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Grant Ingersoll updated SOLR-267: - Attachment: SOLR-267.patch Will commit shortly log handler + query + hits

[jira] Resolved: (SOLR-267) log handler + query + hits

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-267?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Grant Ingersoll resolved SOLR-267. -- Resolution: Fixed Committed revision 649185. log handler + query + hits

Re: LRUCache - synchronized!?

Is there anywhere we can make a note of this so when we do go to 1.5 it gets put in the code? and possibly on the SolrPerformance wiki page so that 1.5 users can get the performance boost I'm expecting this kind of thing would give. are there any disadvantages of using ConcurrentHashMap that

Re: LRUCache - synchronized!?

: Is there anywhere we can make a note of this so when we do go to 1.5 it gets : put in the code? you're confusing the Lucene compatibility requirements with Solr -- Solr has always required 1.5, so if anyone wants to contribute a ConcurrentHashMap based Cache (with some benchmarks

Re: LRUCache - synchronized!?

: I briefly considered it when I threw the caching stuff together... but : the key here is that it's an LRUCache using LinkedHashMap, and there : is no ConcurrentLinkedHashMap. But we could have an alternate ConcurrentHashMap based SolrCache that isn't LRU for people who plan on sizing their

Re: LRUCache - synchronized!?

Chris Hostetter wrote: : I briefly considered it when I threw the caching stuff together... but : the key here is that it's an LRUCache using LinkedHashMap, and there : is no ConcurrentLinkedHashMap. But we could have an alternate ConcurrentHashMap based SolrCache that isn't LRU for people who

Re: LRUCache - synchronized!?

On 17-Apr-08, at 9:03 PM, Chris Hostetter wrote: : I briefly considered it when I threw the caching stuff together... but : the key here is that it's an LRUCache using LinkedHashMap, and there : is no ConcurrentLinkedHashMap. But we could have an alternate ConcurrentHashMap based SolrCache