Responsive asynchronous search-as-you-type in Java 8 - java-8

Question

I'm trying to implement a "search as you type" pattern in Java.
The goal of the design is that no change gets lost but at the same time, the (time consuming) search operation should be able to abort early and try with the updated pattern.
Here is what I've come up so far (Java 8 pseudocode):
AtomicReference<String> patternRef
AtomicLong modificationCount
ReentrantLock busy;
Consumer<List<ResultType>> resultConsumer;
// This is called in a background thread every time the user presses a key
void search(String pattern) {
// Update the pattern
synchronized {
patternRef.set(pattern)
modificationCount.inc()
}
try {
if (!busy.tryLock()) {
// Another search is already running, let it handle the change
return;
}
// Get local copy of the pattern and modCount
synchronized {
String patternCopy = patternRef.get();
long modCount = modificationCount.get()
}
while (true) {
// Try the search. It will return false when modificationCount changes before the search is finished
boolean success = doSearch(patternCopy, modCount)
if (success) {
// Search completed before modCount was changed again
break
}
// Try again with new pattern+modCount
synchronized {
patternCopy = patternRef.get();
modCount = modificationCount.get()
}
}
} finally {
busy.unlock();
}
}
boolean doSearch(String pattern, long modCount)
... search database ...
if (modCount != modificationCount.get()) {
return false;
}
... prepare results ...
if (modCount != modificationCount.get()) {
return false;
}
resultConsumer.accept(result); // Consumer for the UI code to do something
return modCount == modificationCount.get();
}
Did I miss some important point? A race condition or something similar?
Is there something in Java 8 which would make the code above more simple?

Answer 1

The fundamental problem of this code can be summarized as “trying to achieve atomicity by multiple distinct atomic constructs”. The combination of multiple atomic constructs is not atomic and trying to reestablish atomicity leads to very complicated, usually broken, and inefficient code.
In your case, doSearch’s last check modCount == modificationCount.get() happens while still holding the lock. After that, another thread (or multiple other threads) could update the search string and mod count, followed by finding the lock occupied, hence, concluding that another search is running and will take care.
But that thread doesn’t care after that last modCount == modificationCount.get() check. The caller just does if (success) { break; }, followed by the finally { busy.unlock(); } and returns.
So the answer is, yes, you have potential race conditions.
So, instead of settling on two atomic variables, synchronized blocks, and a ReentrantLock, you should use one atomic construct, e.g. a single atomic variable:
final AtomicReference<String> patternRef = new AtomicReference<>();
Consumer<List<ResultType>> resultConsumer;
// This is called in a background thread every time the user presses a key
void search(String pattern) {
if(patternRef.getAndSet(pattern) != null) return;
// Try the search. doSearch will return false when not completed
while(!doSearch(pattern) || !patternRef.compareAndSet(pattern, null))
pattern = patternRef.get();
}
boolean doSearch(String pattern) {
//... search database ...
if(pattern != (Object)patternRef.get()) {
return false;
}
//... prepare results ...
if(pattern != (Object)patternRef.get()) {
return false;
}
resultConsumer.accept(result); // Consumer for the UI code to do something
return true;
}
Here, a value of null indicates that no search is running, so if a background thread sets this to a non-null value and finds the old value to be null (in an atomic operation), it knows it has to perform the actual search. After the search, it tries to set the reference to null again, using compareAndSet with the pattern used for the search. Thus, it can only succeed if it has not changed again. Otherwise, it will fetch the new value and repeat.
These two atomic updates are already sufficient to ensure that there is only a single search operation at a time while not missing an updated search pattern. The ability of doSearch to return early when it detects a change, is just a nice to have and not required by the caller’s loop.
Note that in this example, the check within doSearch has been reduced to a reference comparison (using a cast to Object to prevent compiler warnings), to demonstrate that it can be as cheap as the int comparison of your original approach. As long as no new string has been set, the reference will be the same.
But, in fact, you could also use a string comparison, i.e. if(!pattern.equals(patternRef.get())) { return false; } without a significant performance degradation. String comparison is not (necessarily) expensive in Java. The first thing, the implementation of String’s equals does, is a reference comparison. So if the string has not changed, it will return true immediately here. Otherwise, it will check the lengths then (unlike C strings, the length is known beforehand) and return false immediately on a mismatch. So in the typical scenario of the user typing another character or pressing backspace, the lengths will differ and the comparison bail out immediately.