similar to: About memory index/search in multithread program

There may be some solutions?for example class XAPIAN { *static* int InitDatabase(); //for reading only, do not need lock, but if writing use lock int Search(); //safe in one object, do not need lock }; XIPIAN xp[ THREAD_NUM ]; one thread use one object, they use one database. these can be in memory with one database. 2014-06-24 20:48 GMT+08:00 Olly Betts <olly at survex.com>:

Resurrecting an old thread from 2012! Finally got back to working on this. I have been stuck in JavaScript land for too long. Come to find out, on windows, perl does indeed define open to be win32_open and close to be win32_close. This is done in perl/lib/CORE/win3iop.h. So, to get past this problem, I had to modify Xapian.xs to do an #undef of open and close if WIN32 is defined. Also, I had

I've just added a feature test for the new WritableDatabase methods - replace_document() and delete_document() with a unique term. This initially failed for inmemory due to bugs in the backend. They weren't trivial to fix and my initial attempt at a fix caused other tests to fail. I've come to the conclusion that the code there probably should be retired. It was written early on

Check out http://nondot.org/sabre/LLVMNotes -Chris http://nondot.org/sabre http://llvm.org On Jul 27, 2007, at 12:00 PM, Sarah Thompson <thompson at email.arc.nasa.gov > wrote: > Hi folks, > > Assuming that I'm writing a pass and that for bizarre reasons I need > to > programmatically do the equivalent of a C/C++ sizeof on a Value (or a > Type, it doesn't

Hi folks, Assuming that I'm writing a pass and that for bizarre reasons I need to programmatically do the equivalent of a C/C++ sizeof on a Value (or a Type, it doesn't matter which really), yielding a result in bytes, what is the known-safe way to do this? I notice that doing something like struct thingy { ... some stuff ... }; ... printf("Size = %d",

Greets, I'm giving a stab at patching the CPAN module to add the missing WritableDatabase::add_spelling and remove_spelling, but need a bit of guidance since I'm coming in cold, and pressed for time (aren't we all). I've modified XS/WritableDatabase.xs and added the two necessary functions, and also added the two basic tests in t/index.t. Compilation completes cleanly, but

On Apr 24, 2014, at 1:33 AM, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov at google.com> wrote: >> >> I can see that the behavior of our current instrumentation is going to be a >> problem for the kinds of applications that you’re looking at. If you can >> find a way to get the overhead down without losing accuracy > > What are your requirements for accuracy? > Current

On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 12:13 AM, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov at google.com> wrote: > Hi, > > This is long thread, so I will combine several comments into single email. > > > >> - 8-bit per-thread counters, dumping into central counters on overflow. > >The overflow will happen very quickly with 8bit counter. > > Yes, but it reduces contention by 256x (a thread

On Apr 23, 2014, at 7:31 AM, Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google.com> wrote: > I've run one proprietary benchmark that reflects a large portion of the google's server side code. > -fprofile-instr-generate leads to 14x slowdown due to counter contention. That's serious. > Admittedly, there is a single hot function that accounts for half of that slowdown, > but even if

I think what i did is the same with you except i use make rather than make -sj8, and I did as root. And I do as you wrote again: root at hurricanetong-VirtualBox:/home/hurricanetong/xapian-1.2.17/xapian-core-1.2.17# ./configure [...] root at hurricanetong-VirtualBox:/home/hurricanetong/xapian-1.2.17/xapian-core-1.2.17# make -sj8 Making all in . Making all in docs Making all in tests root at

I uninstall xapian1.3 and install xapian-1.2.17 but i still failed hurricanetong at hurricanetong-VirtualBox:~/workspace$ g++ `xapian-config --cxxflags --libs` demo2.cc /tmp/cc2wsfDJ.o: In function `main': demo2.cc:(.text+0x4a): undefined reference to `Xapian::WritableDatabase::WritableDatabase(std::basic_string<char, std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char> >

[Just starting out with DTrace and was hoping to get some guidance.] I have a "benchmark" program that I monitored with both prstat (prstat -mL -P <PID>) and pfilestat (from the DTrace toolkit). Prstat reports LAT values in the 0.1-0.2% range, but pfilestat reports "waitcpu" values in the 6-10%. Since those two numbers supposedly represent time waiting for the CPU,

Hi olly, I rewrote the test for PL2 after adding code to deal with negative weights. It passes on all backends other than inmemory . I see a different value of weight for inmemory backend. The code to calculate the lower bound is implemented in init().Please can I get some help with this ? -Regards -Aarsh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

On Sun, 21 Feb 2016 22:33:22 +0000, Olly Betts <olly at survex.com> wrote: > On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 02:15:25PM +0100, Eric J wrote: > > I discovered, while trying to set up Tcl bindings for Notmuch > > (https://notmuchmail.org/), which uses Xapian, that flintlock was not > > being locked (I had lost updates). > > It seems to work for me, testing with this: >

Hi, As part of my whole indexing thing, I want to move the databases around, from within the code. So, I figured that the safest bet would be to close the DB before attempting to move it. But there's no Xapian::Database::close() or even Xapian::WritableDatabase::close(). I have a global variable that holds the database, and I open it in the main(): // globals Xapian::WritableDatabase

I wouldn't report this if not for one coincidence (which is described below). I have too little facts, so this is more of a mystery problem tale than a real problem report. There are two systems: 1. old, slow, i386, UP, 7-STABLE 2. new, fast, amd64, MP, 6.3-RELEASE Systems are located at different physical locations. What is common between them: 1. they both have the same backup strategy

Locking of Quartz databases is currently done with a lockfile. This works well from the actual locking side, but the downside is that the lock isn't released if a process doesn't destroy the Xapian::WritableDatabase object. This is made worse because some of the bindings don't call destructors (or don't do it reliably). The obvious alternative is to use actual locking APIs. On

Hello list, looks like one can open a Xapian database in read-only mode and do the following: $db = Search::Xapian::Database->new("/foo/bar/"); $enq = $db->enquire("XIDblub"); the same doesn't seem to be possible with a database opened in read-write mode: $db = Search::Xapian::WritableDatabase->new("/foo/bar/",

Hi, I've compiled xapian 1.0.9 (core and buildings) on Windows Xp, using Lemur's nmake files[1]. I'm trying to use acts_as_xapian [2] on RubyOnRails, but I'm facing a problem with the rebuild index process. in acts_as_xapian, to rebuild the index, a new Xapian::WritableDatabase is created with a different path, then flush() is invoked; lastly, the new path is renamed to the old

Please find my inline reply. On 26 January 2015 at 06:56, Olly Betts <olly at survex.com> wrote: > On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 06:46:26PM +0500, Saad Ahmed wrote: > > I have been able to successfully build the code. But when I run the > > existing testcases (to verify everthing is working fine), It says 3 out > of > > the six testcases fails. Here is the report of the