Mike, I revamped the DirectUpdateHandler2 into DirectUpdateHandler3 in SOLR-1155, probably ready enough for your review to see if locking makes sense for current Lucene behavior.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1155 --j Mike Klaas wrote: > > On 7-May-09, at 10:36 AM, jayson.minard wrote: > >> >> Does every thread really need to notify the update handler of the >> commit >> interval/threshold being reached, or really just the first thread that >> notices should send the signal, or better yet a background commit >> watching >> thread so that no "foreground" thread has to pay attention at all. >> That is >> assuming they wouldn't need to block like they are now for a reason >> I'm >> likely unaware of... > > This is due to the way Lucene was designed (although recent > improvements in Lucene mean we can do better here). See the recent > thread "Autocommit blocking adds?" on solr-user for a related > discussion. > > As the person who first wrote the multi-threaded-ness of DUH2, I'd be > very happy to promptly review any improvements made to it. > > -Mike > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/DirectUpdateHandler2-threads-pile-up-behind-scheduleCommitWithin-tp23431691p23472391.html Sent from the Solr - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
