ChrisHegarty commented on PR #13872: URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13872#issuecomment-2464638368
I am now completely confused by this change. And I think that my last commit broke the threading model - even though all tests pass!. I'm not saying that we should not do some refactoring here, but I think that the original premise that this change is based upon is not quite right. We have the following use cases: 1) single-threaded: where the scoring can be performed by many scorer instances backed by two slices. Since the scorers can only possibly be scoring sequentially, and we can benefit from sharing the effective thread-local buffer. 2) multi-threaded: we want to fork a new score supplier so that it can be used in a separate thread. Here, obviously, we want a new slice that is unaffected by the creating thread, and which will have it's own effective thread-local buffer. My understanding is that conflating access and cloning/copying into a single method means that we cannot achieve both the above use cases in an optimal way. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: issues-h...@lucene.apache.org
