[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-9455?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17218706#comment-17218706
]
Zach Chen commented on LUCENE-9455:
-----------------------------------
Thanks Bruno. I thought about the proposal above a bit. I feel using
*System.identityHashCode(this)* is a bit different from using *counter* in
*(counter & TIMEOUT_CHECK_SAMPLING) == 0*, as counter is monotonically
increasing and thus somewhat "guaranteed" to hit the threshold to check timeout
status. If we assume the computed hash code is uniformly distributed, then with
*System.identityHashCode(this)* we are effectively sampling with a chance of
1/2 * 1/2 * 1/2 * 1/2 = 1/16 (chance of an hash code integer with all 4 lowest
bits to be 0, if TIMEOUT_CHECK_SAMPLING is 15). Could this probability be too
small for actual production scenarios to trigger the timeout check?
> ExitableTermsEnum (in ExitableDirectoryReader) should sample next()
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-9455
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-9455
> Project: Lucene - Core
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: core/other
> Reporter: David Smiley
> Priority: Major
> Labels: newdev
> Time Spent: 1h 20m
> Remaining Estimate: 0h
>
> ExitableTermsEnum calls "checkAndThrow" on *every* call to next(). This is
> too expensive; it should sample. I observed ElasticSearch uses the same
> approach; I think Lucene would benefit from this:
> https://github.com/elastic/elasticsearch/blob/4af4eb99e18fdaadac879b1223e986227dd2ee71/server/src/main/java/org/elasticsearch/search/internal/ExitableDirectoryReader.java#L151
> CC [~jimczi]
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: issues-h...@lucene.apache.org
