I added the Thread Pool recently, so things did probably work before
that. I am certainly willing to put the Thread Pool init in the open
call instead of the constructor.
As for the best method to use, I was thinking of something along the
same lines as what you suggest.
One of the decisions will be how to handle shutting down method calls on
the Accessor. Throw an Exception or block?
In any case, I will put up code that makes the above change and your
code should work as it did. I'll be sure to add this to the test cases.
Just as a personal interest question, what has led you to setup your
index this way? Adding partitions as it grows that is.
- Mark
vivek sar wrote:
> Mark,
>
> Yes, I think that's what precisely is happening. I call
> accessor.close, which shuts down all the ExecutorService. I was
> assuming the accessor.open would re-open it (I think that's how it
> worked in older version of your IndexAccessor).
>
> Basically, I need a way to stop (or close) all the IndexSearchers for
> a specific IndexAccessor and do not allow them to re-open until I flag
> the indexAccessor that it's safe to give out new index searchers. So I
> am able to optimize the index, rename it and move it to somewhere else
> during partitioning. Right now without closing the searchers I can not
> rename the index as it wouldn't allow me to if some other thread has a
> file handle to that index.
>
> I don't know if there is a way to get an exclusive writer thread to an
> index using IndexAccessor. I would think a better way for me would be
> to,
>
> 1) Call a method on IndexAccessor, let's say stopIndex() - This
> would clear all the caches (stop all the open searchers, readers and
> writers) and flag the index accessor so no other reader or writer
> thread can be taken from this index accessor
> 2) I use my own (not using IndexAccessor) IndexWriter to do
> optimization on the index that needs to be partitioned and release it
> 3) Once done with partition, I call another method on
> IndexAccessor, let's say startIndex() -> This will simply flag so
> now the IndexAccessor would allow to get searchers, readers and
> writers. The start would have to reopen all the searchers and readers.
>
> Not sure if this is a good design for what I am trying to do. This
> would require two new methods on IndexAccessor - stopIndex() and
> startIndex(). Any thoughts?
>
> Thanks,
> -vivek
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 3:55 PM, Mark Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Hey vivek,
>>
>> Sorry you ran into this. I believe the problem is that I had just not
>> foreseen the use case of closing and then reopening the Accessor. The
>> only time I ever close the Accessors is when I am shutting down the JVM.
>>
>> What do you do about all of the IndexAccessor requests while it is in a
>> closed state? Could their be a better way of accomplishing this without
>> closing the Accessor? Would a new method that just stalled everything be
>> better? Then you wouldn't have to recreate any resources possibly?
>>
>> In any case, the problem is that after the Executor gets shutdown it is
>> not reopened in the open method. I can certainly change this, but I need
>> to look for any other issues as well. I will add an open after a
>> shutdown test to investigate. I am going to think about the issue
>> further and I will get back to you soon.
>>
>> Thanks for all of the details.
>>
>> - Mark
>>
>>
>>
>> vivek sar wrote:
>> > Mark,
>> >
>> > Some more information,
>> >
>> > 1) I run indexwriter every 5 mins
>> > 2) After every cycle I check if I need to partition (based on
>> > the index size)
>> > 3) In the partition interface,
>> > a) I first call close on the index accessor (so all the
>> > searchers can close before I move that index)
>> > accessor =
>> > IndexAccessorFactory.getInstance().getAccessor(dir.getFile());
>> > accessor.close();
>> > b) Then I re-open the index accessor,
>> > accessor =
indexFactory.getAccessor(dir.getFile());
>> > accessor.open();
>> > c) I optimized the my indexes using the Index Writer (that
>> > I get from the accessor).
>> > masterWriter =
this.indexAccessor.getWriter(false);
>> > masterWriter.optimize(optimizeSegment);
>> > d) Once the optimization is done I release the masterWriter,
>> > this.indexAccessor.release(masterWriter);
>> >
>> > Now here is where I get the "RejectedExecutionException".
>> > Reading up little more on this exception,
>> >
http://pveentjer.wordpress.com/2008/02/06/are-you-dealing-with-the-rejectedexecutionexception/,
>> > I see this might be happening because something got stuck during the
>> > close cycle, so the ExecutorSerivce is not accepting any new tasks.
>> > I'm not sure how would this happen.
>> >
>> > The critical problem is once I get this exception, every release call
>> > throws the same exception (looks like shutdown never gets done).
>> > Because of this my readers are never refreshed and I can not read any
>> > new indexes.
>> >
>> > May be I've to check whether the accessor is completely closed before
>> > re-opening? Could you in your release check whether the pool
>> > (ExecutorService) is in shutdown state? Any thing else I can check?
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > -vivek
>> >
>> > On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 1:26 PM, vivek sar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Mark,
>> >>
>> >> We deployed our indexer (using defaultIndexAccessor) on one of the
>> >> production site and getting this error,
>> >>
>> >> Caused by: java.util.concurrent.RejectedExecutionException
>> >> at
java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor$AbortPolicy.rejectedExecution(Unknown
>> >> Source)
>> >> at java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor.reject(Unknown
Source)
>> >> at java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor.execute(Unknown
Source)
>> >> at
org.apache.lucene.indexaccessor.DefaultIndexAccessor.release(DefaultIndexAccessor.java:514)
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> This is happening repeatedly every time the indexer runs.
>> >>
>> >> This is running your latest IndexAccessor-021508 code. Any ideas
>> >> (it's kind of urgent for us)?
>> >>
>> >> Thanks,
>> >> -vivek
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 6:50 PM, vivek sar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> > Mark,
>> >> >
>> >> > Thanks for the quick fix. Actually, it is possible that there might
>> >> > had been simultaneous queries using the MultiSearcher. I assumed it
>> >> > was thread-safe, thus was re-using the same instance. I'll update my
>> >> > application code as well.
>> >> >
>> >> > Thanks,
>> >> > -vivek
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > On Feb 15, 2008 5:56 PM, Mark Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> > > Here is the fix: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1026
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > > vivek sar wrote:
>> >> > > > Mark,
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > There seems to be some issue with
DefaultMultiIndexAccessor.java. I
>> >> > > > got following NPE exception,
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > 2008-02-13 07:10:28,021 ERROR [http-7501-Processor6]
ReportServiceImpl -
>> >> > > > java.lang.NullPointerException
>> >> > > > at
org.apache.lucene.indexaccessor.DefaultMultiIndexAccessor.release(DefaultMultiIndexAccessor.java:89)
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Looks like the IndexAccessor for one of the Searcher in the
>> >> > > > MultiSearcher returned null. Not sure how is that possible, any
ideas
>> >> > > > how is that possible?
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > In my case it caused a critical error as the writer thread was
stuck
>> >> > > > forever (we found out after couple of days) because of this,
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > "PS thread 9" prio=1 tid=0x00002aac70eb95d0 nid=0x6ba in
Object.wait()
>> >> > > > [0x0000000047533000..0x0000000047533b80]
>> >> > > > at java.lang.Object.wait(Native Method)
>> >> > > > - waiting on <0x00002aab3e5c7700> (a
>> >> > > > org.apache.lucene.indexaccessor.DefaultIndexAccessor)
>> >> > > > at java.lang.Object.wait(Unknown Source)
>> >> > > > at
org.apache.lucene.indexaccessor.DefaultIndexAccessor.waitForReadersAndCloseCached(DefaultIndexAccessor.java:593)
>> >> > > > at
org.apache.lucene.indexaccessor.DefaultIndexAccessor.release(DefaultIndexAccessor.java:510)
>> >> > > > - locked <0x00002aab3e5c7700> (a
>> >> > > > org.apache.lucene.indexaccessor.DefaultIndexAccessor)
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > The only way to recover was to re-start the application.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > I use both MultiSearcher and IndexSearcher in my application,
I've
>> >> > > > looked at your code but not able to pinpoint how can it go
wrong? Of
>> >> > > > course, you do have to check for null in the
>> >> > > > MultiIndexAccessor.release, but how could you get null index
accessor
>> >> > > > at first place?
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > I do call IndexAccessor.close during partitioning of indexes,
but the
>> >> > > > close should wait for all Searchers to close before doing
anything.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Do you have any updates to your code since 02/04/2008?
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Thanks,
>> >> > > > -vivek
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > On Feb 6, 2008 8:37 AM, Jay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >> Thanks for your clarifications, Mark!
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> Jay
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> Mark Miller wrote:
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >>>> 5. Although currently IndexSearcher.close() does almost
nothing except
>> >> > > >>>> to close the internal index reader, it might be a safer to
close
>> >> > > >>>> searcher itself as well in closeCachedSearcher(), just in
case, the
>> >> > > >>>> searcher may have other resources to release in the future
version of
>> >> > > >>>> Lucene.
>> >> > > >>>>
>> >> > > >>> Didn't catch that "as well". You are right, great idea Jay,
thanks.
>> >> > > >>>
>> >> > > >>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> > > >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >> > > >>> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >> > > >>>
>> >> > > >>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> > > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >> > > >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >> > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
