Solrnet NHibernate integration

Every developer which creates a scalable applications with high read/write ratio finally has to move to some query oriented storage, which allows almost instant, advanced querying. Solr is one of the frequently used solutions, providing a nice performance with advanced indexing/querying. Talking to Solr needs an API and for .NET and you can use SolrNet. As it is described on the project page, it provides a nice and simple way to integrate with NHibernate, simply by calling following code:

NHibernate.Cfg.Configuration cfg = SetupNHibernate();
var cfgHelper = new NHibernate.SolrNet.CfgHelper();
cfgHelper.Configure(cfg, true); // true -> autocommit Solr after every operation (not really recommended)

The integration with NH allows you to use an extended session to query the solr server. Additionally, all your updates, inserts, deletes will be automatically called on the solr. This feature is provided by NH events listeners registered by the described configuration helper. Let’s take a look and audit a bit of code:

public Configuration Configure(Configuration config, bool autoCommit)
 foreach (Type type in this.mapper.GetRegisteredTypes())
 Type type2 = typeof(SolrNetListener<>).MakeGenericType(new Type[] { type });
 Type serviceType = typeof(ISolrOperations<>).MakeGenericType(new Type[] { type });
 object service = this.provider.GetService(serviceType);
 ICommitSetting listener = (ICommitSetting) Activator.CreateInstance(type2, new object[] { service });
 listener.Commit = autoCommit;
 this.SetListener(config, listener);
 return config;

For each of mapped types a new listener is generated. Is it OK? Why do not use one listener (with no generics at all), handling all the mapped types?
Additionally, doesn’t SetListener method clear all the previously registered listeners, so… what about the types previously handled?

The more interesting question can be raised when looking through the SolrNetListener<T> code. All the listeners in NH are singletons. They are initialized during the start up phase, and used till the application end. Hence, listeners should be stateless, or use some kind of current context resolvers passed in their constructor. The SolrNetListener uses WeakHashtables fields to store the entities which should be flushed to the solr. Static field (because the listener is a singleton)? What about the race conditions, locking etc.? Let’s take a look:

The example of Delete method, called, when solr delete should be deferred (session uses a transaction) shows that listener GLOBALLY locks the execution of all threads:

private void Delete(ITransaction s, T entity)
 lock (this.entitiesToDelete.SyncRoot)
 if (!this.entitiesToDelete.Contains(s))
 this.entitiesToDelete[s] = new List<T>();
 ((IList<T>) this.entitiesToAdd[s]).Add(entity);

furthermore, data can be committed to the solr server, but not committed to the sql database! It can happen when flushing occurs. The override of OnFlush method saves the data to the solr before flushing the db changes.
What if optimistic locking rolls back the whole transaction after the data were stored in the solr? I’d rather have no data in solr and use some background worker to upsert data in solr then have copies of nonexisting entities.

The right behavior for the solr, with no global locks, flushing changes to the solr after a sql db transaction commit can be done with using an Interceptor and rewritten the event handler. I’ll describe it in the next post.


2 thoughts on “Solrnet NHibernate integration

  1. It would have been nice of you to bring this to the SolrNet mailing list, instead of me bumping into this blog post by pure chance.
    I know that locking isn’t optimal, but it’s a really short lock, I don’t think you can even measure it, so it’s not a problem in practice.
    If there are any bugs with this could you write some failing tests and maybe also a patch? Also, where’s the post describing how to fix this with an interceptor and a rewritten even handler?
    As Linus famously said: talk is cheap, show me the code 😉

    • @Mauricio
      Yep, you’re right. I should have brought this to the mailing list. I did not continue the post as my team left the Solr because of complex queries which could not be handled by it. I do agree with Linus and I will present my proposal by the end of weekend:) Of course I’ll post a link on the list 😛

Comments are closed.