Yonik Seeley-2 wrote:
>
> ...your code snippit elided and edited below ...
>
Don't take this code as correct (or even compiling) but is this the essence?
I moved shared access to the writer inside the read lock and kept the other
non-commit bits to the write lock. I'd need to rethink the locking in a
more fundamental way but is this close to idea?
public void commit(CommitUpdateCommand cmd) throws IOException {
if (cmd.optimize) {
optimizeCommands.incrementAndGet();
} else {
commitCommands.incrementAndGet();
}
Future[] waitSearcher = null;
if (cmd.waitSearcher) {
waitSearcher = new Future[1];
}
boolean error=true;
iwCommit.lock();
try {
log.info("start "+cmd);
if (cmd.optimize) {
closeSearcher();
openWriter();
writer.optimize(cmd.maxOptimizeSegments);
}
finally {
iwCommit.unlock();
}
iwAccess.lock();
try
{
writer.commit();
}
finally
{
iwAccess.unlock();
}
iwCommit.lock();
try
{
callPostCommitCallbacks();
if (cmd.optimize) {
callPostOptimizeCallbacks();
}
// open a new searcher in the sync block to avoid opening it
// after a deleteByQuery changed the index, or in between deletes
// and adds of another commit being done.
core.getSearcher(true,false,waitSearcher);
// reset commit tracking
tracker.didCommit();
log.info("end_commit_flush");
error=false;
}
finally {
iwCommit.unlock();
addCommands.set(0);
deleteByIdCommands.set(0);
deleteByQueryCommands.set(0);
numErrors.set(error ? 1 : 0);
}
// if we are supposed to wait for the searcher to be registered, then we
should do it
// outside of the synchronized block so that other update operations can
proceed.
if (waitSearcher!=null && waitSearcher[0] != null) {
try {
waitSearcher[0].get();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
SolrException.log(log,e);
} catch (ExecutionException e) {
SolrException.log(log,e);
}
}
}
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Autocommit-blocking-adds---AutoCommit-Speedup--tp23435224p23454419.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
