lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Ning Li (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] Commented: (LUCENE-565) Supporting deleteDocuments in IndexWriter (Code and Performance Results Provided)
Date Tue, 19 Dec 2006 00:48:30 GMT
    [ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-565?page=comments#action_12459506 ] 
            
Ning Li commented on LUCENE-565:
--------------------------------

Here is the design overview. Minor changes were made because of lock-less commits.

In the current IndexWriter, newly added documents are buffered in ram in the form of one-doc
segments.
When a flush is triggered, all ram documents are merged into a single segment and written
to disk.
Further merges of disk segments may be triggered.

NewIndexModifier extends IndexWriter and supports document deletion in addition to document
addition.
NewIndexModifier not only buffers newly added documents in ram, but also buffers deletes in
ram.
The following describes what happens when a flush is triggered:

  1 merge ram documents into one segment and written to disk
    do not commit - segmentInfos is updated in memory, but not written to disk

  2 for each disk segment to which a delete may apply
      open reader
      delete docs*, write new .delN file (* Care is taken to ensure that an interleaved sequence
of
        inserts and deletes for the same document are properly serialized.)
      close reader, but do not commit - segmentInfos is updated in memory, but not written
to disk

  3 commit - write new segments_N to disk

Further merges for disk segments work the same as before.


As an option, we can cache readers to minimize the number of reader opens/closes. In other
words,
we can trade memory for better performance. The design would be modified as follows:

  1 same as above

  2 for each disk segment to which a delete may apply
      open reader and cache it if not already opened/cached
      delete docs*, write new .delN file

  3 commit - write new segments_N to disk

The logic for disk segment merge changes accordingly: open reader if not already opened/cached;
after a merge is complete, close readers for the segments that have been merged.


> Supporting deleteDocuments in IndexWriter (Code and Performance Results Provided)
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: LUCENE-565
>                 URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-565
>             Project: Lucene - Java
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: Index
>            Reporter: Ning Li
>         Attachments: NewIndexModifier.Sept21.patch, perf-test-res.JPG, perf-test-res2.JPG,
perfres.log, TestBufferedDeletesPerf.java
>
>
> Today, applications have to open/close an IndexWriter and open/close an
> IndexReader directly or indirectly (via IndexModifier) in order to handle a
> mix of inserts and deletes. This performs well when inserts and deletes
> come in fairly large batches. However, the performance can degrade
> dramatically when inserts and deletes are interleaved in small batches.
> This is because the ramDirectory is flushed to disk whenever an IndexWriter
> is closed, causing a lot of small segments to be created on disk, which
> eventually need to be merged.
> We would like to propose a small API change to eliminate this problem. We
> are aware that this kind change has come up in discusions before. See
> http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/lucene/java-dev/23049?search_string=indexwriter%20delete;#23049
> . The difference this time is that we have implemented the change and
> tested its performance, as described below.
> API Changes
> -----------
> We propose adding a "deleteDocuments(Term term)" method to IndexWriter.
> Using this method, inserts and deletes can be interleaved using the same
> IndexWriter.
> Note that, with this change it would be very easy to add another method to
> IndexWriter for updating documents, allowing applications to avoid a
> separate delete and insert to update a document.
> Also note that this change can co-exist with the existing APIs for deleting
> documents using an IndexReader. But if our proposal is accepted, we think
> those APIs should probably be deprecated.
> Coding Changes
> --------------
> Coding changes are localized to IndexWriter. Internally, the new
> deleteDocuments() method works by buffering the terms to be deleted.
> Deletes are deferred until the ramDirectory is flushed to disk, either
> because it becomes full or because the IndexWriter is closed. Using Java
> synchronization, care is taken to ensure that an interleaved sequence of
> inserts and deletes for the same document are properly serialized.
> We have attached a modified version of IndexWriter in Release 1.9.1 with
> these changes. Only a few hundred lines of coding changes are needed. All
> changes are commented by "CHANGE". We have also attached a modified version
> of an example from Chapter 2.2 of Lucene in Action.
> Performance Results
> -------------------
> To test the performance our proposed changes, we ran some experiments using
> the TREC WT 10G dataset. The experiments were run on a dual 2.4 Ghz Intel
> Xeon server running Linux. The disk storage was configured as RAID0 array
> with 5 drives. Before indexes were built, the input documents were parsed
> to remove the HTML from them (i.e., only the text was indexed). This was
> done to minimize the impact of parsing on performance. A simple
> WhitespaceAnalyzer was used during index build.
> We experimented with three workloads:
>   - Insert only. 1.6M documents were inserted and the final
>     index size was 2.3GB.
>   - Insert/delete (big batches). The same documents were
>     inserted, but 25% were deleted. 1000 documents were
>     deleted for every 4000 inserted.
>   - Insert/delete (small batches). In this case, 5 documents
>     were deleted for every 20 inserted.
>                                 current       current          new
> Workload                      IndexWriter  IndexModifier   IndexWriter
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Insert only                     116 min       119 min        116 min
> Insert/delete (big batches)       --          135 min        125 min
> Insert/delete (small batches)     --          338 min        134 min
> As the experiments show, with the proposed changes, the performance
> improved by 60% when inserts and deletes were interleaved in small batches.
> Regards,
> Ning
> Ning Li
> Search Technologies
> IBM Almaden Research Center
> 650 Harry Road
> San Jose, CA 95120

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators: http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/Administrators.jspa
-
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira

        

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org


Mime
View raw message