ObjectDB Database Search

.util. concurrent .ThreadPoolExecutor.runWorker(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:1110) [rt.jar:1.7.0_04] at java.util. concurrent .ThreadPoolExecutor$Worker.run(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:603) [rt.jar:1.7.0_04] at java

version). In my theory, this is a (possible) cause and what we are doing - concurrent access ... concurrently executing threads, as the entity manager and persistence context are not required

I have facing a problem when i am executing the query first time, Please find the stack trace below java.lang.InterruptedException at java.util. concurrent .locks.AbstractQueuedSynchronizer.acquireSharedInterruptibly(AbstractQueuedSynchronizer.java:1301) at java.util. concurrent .Semaphore.acquire

.JIoEndpoint$SocketProcessor.run(JIoEndpoint.java:310) at java.util. concurrent .ThreadPoolExecutor.runWorker(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:1145) at java.util. concurrent .ThreadPoolExecutor$Worker.run

like this : com.objectdb.jpa.Provider   From other beans I need concurrent access to the database ... (updatedRecord); or recordDao.storeRecord(newRecord); Other concurrent operations that I execute

(JIoEndpoint.java:312) at java.util. concurrent .ThreadPoolExecutor.runWorker(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:1110) at java.util. concurrent .ThreadPoolExecutor$Worker.run(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:603) at java.lang

.net.JIoEndpoint$SocketProcessor.run(JIoEndpoint.java:312) at java.util. concurrent .ThreadPoolExecutor.runWorker(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:1145) at java.util. concurrent .ThreadPoolExecutor$Worker.run

] at java.util. concurrent .ThreadPoolExecutor.runWorker(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:1145) [rt.jar:1.7.0_21] at java.util. concurrent .ThreadPoolExecutor$Worker.run(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:615) [rt.jar:1.7.0_21

.SFSEventManager$SFSEventRunner.run(SFSEventManager.java:64) java.util. concurrent .ThreadPoolExecutor.runWorker(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:1145) java.util. concurrent .ThreadPoolExecutor$Worker.run

(SFSEventManager.java:64) java.util. concurrent .ThreadPoolExecutor.runWorker(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:1145) java.util. concurrent .ThreadPoolExecutor$Worker.run(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:615) java.lang

concurrency issue with one lock - then when the first process delete the lock and then the folder ... that two processes will try to delete the same obsolete directory concurrently , but this should not cause any problem. support Support

(NioEndpoint.java:1456) [tomcat-embed-core-8.0.28.jar:8.0.28] at java.util. concurrent .ThreadPoolExecutor.runWorker(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:1142) [na:1.8.0_72] at java.util. concurrent .ThreadPoolExecutor$Worker

if the performance issue is due to load of several concurrent clients, or maybe same slow performance ... concurrent requests from different users, and also tries to use multiple cores for a single request

it. In addition, we just released a new build (2.7.1_01) that supports concurrent reading from ... :     System.setProperty("objectdb.temp. concurrent -file-read", "true"); (or using

; at java.util. concurrent .ThreadPoolExecutor.runWorker(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:1142)         at java.util. concurrent .ThreadPoolExecutor$Worker.run(ThreadPoolExecutor.java

(Unknown Source) java.util. concurrent .ThreadPoolExecutor.runWorker(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:1149) java.util. concurrent .ThreadPoolExecutor$Worker.run(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:624) java.lang.Thread.run

.ArrayList; import java.util.HashMap; import java.util.Map; import java.util. concurrent .CyclicBarrier; import java.util. concurrent .TimeUnit; public class Main { public static void main(String[] args

;  at io.netty.util. concurrent .SingleThreadEventExecutor$5.run(SingleThreadEventExecutor.java ... )     at io.netty.util. concurrent .FastThreadLocalRunnable.run(FastThreadLocalRunnable

.35.jar:9.0.35] at java.base/java.util. concurrent .ThreadPoolExecutor.runWorker(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:1130) ~[na:na] at java.base/java.util. concurrent .ThreadPoolExecutor$Worker.run(ThreadPoolExecutor

to set the objectdb.temp. concurrent -file-read system property to true when running your server (-D objectdb.temp. concurrent -file-read=true) . If set to true , try false . If not tried already, try

/PersistenceManager level. To have real concurrent operations, you have to use ObjectDB 2.0 (and not ObjectDB 1.0

that the whole issue could be delegated to the container? I'm concurrently developing actively

of the merge. Still haven't used ObjectDB in embedded mode. My issue was concurrency , and as OP posted, they are mainly single threaded. Willks William

pessimistic locking due to a highly concurrent system that requires integrity on some value. Rest

there are other feature requests with higher priority. True, I concurr that IT WORKS. However consider the bloat

what may be the cause for this exception? I could understand a  concurrency issue when persisting

cannot write to the same ObjectDB database concurrently . Future versions may remove this limitation

Optimistic locking failure: I am using a Semaphore to force this execution of concurrents transactions T1 and T2 that cause parallel updates to A/B but it does not throw an OptimisticLockException and roll back. T1 T2 ---------------------------------------------------------- READ(A) version=1

? A separate cache is managed per open database. How many database files do you use concurrently

. Alternatively, you may also try reducing concurrent memory consumption by using less working threads  

Hi, we are using Embeded objectDB 2.4.4_06 in a highly multithreaded concurrent manner and we have noticed a performance problem in our application that seems to be attributed to ObjectDb's internal locking. When profiling our app in JVisualVm we notice a large number of threads are blocked

of an object. To avoid using the same object by different users concurrently (even for read

Trying to move a project from test into production phase, I have started to get internal exceptions when working on large data sets: java.util. concurrent .ExecutionException: com.objectdb.o.InternalException: Unexpected internal exception .... Caused by: com.objectdb.o.InternalException: Unexpected

with ObjectDB along with Concurrency controls and transaction mgmt. Let us know if it is possible to run

this is related to registering persistable types in the database concurrently , i.e. when running the application

of using more than one version of an entity class concurrently . When you restart the server

of entity classes concurrently . When you upgrade your schema you must make sure that the ObjectDB

workaround if it works. It may also indicate that the problem is related to concurrent use of the cache ... Sedlakova During the weekend we ran intensive tests of concurrent persist/find/remove/update operations

) at java.util. concurrent .ThreadPoolExecutor.runWorker(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:1110) at java.util. concurrent .ThreadPoolExecutor$Worker.run(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:603) at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java

.net.JIoEndpoint$SocketProcessor.run(JIoEndpoint.java:310) at java.util. concurrent .ThreadPoolExecutor.runWorker(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:1145) at java.util. concurrent .ThreadPoolExecutor$Worker.run

.net.JIoEndpoint$SocketProcessor.run(JIoEndpoint.java:310) at java.util. concurrent .ThreadPoolExecutor.runWorker(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:1142) at java.util. concurrent .ThreadPoolExecutor$Worker.run

(Unknown Source)         at java.util. concurrent .ThreadPoolExecutor.runWorker(Unknown Source)         at java.util. concurrent

.net.JIoEndpoint$SocketProcessor.run(JIoEndpoint.java:318) at java.util. concurrent .ThreadPoolExecutor.runWorker(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:1142) at java.util. concurrent .ThreadPoolExecutor$Worker.run

.apache.tomcat.util.net.SocketProcessorBase.run(SocketProcessorBase.java:49) at java.util. concurrent .ThreadPoolExecutor.runWorker(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:1149) at java.util. concurrent .ThreadPoolExecutor

.DispatchedTask.run(Dispatched.kt:233) at java.util. concurrent .ThreadPoolExecutor.runWorker(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:1149) at java.util. concurrent .ThreadPoolExecutor$Worker.run(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:624

distinct databases concurrently ? If not and you only have one database, try to build ... is that maybe your application has 132 concurrent connections to the database (e.g. in 132

.temp. concurrent -file-read", "true"); by the way, in our application it is not possible that some ... and queried concurrently , but no exceptions are thrown later, i.e. restarting the system wasn't really

object. Fixed merging entity objects of another EntityManager . Fixed a bug in concurrent

open databases do you use concurrently ? Following the thread dump I count about 9 open databases

DB in Server mode, I have numerous threads trying to concurrently persist new entities