lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Michael McCandless (JIRA)" <>
Subject [jira] Updated: (LUCENE-565) Supporting deleteDocuments in IndexWriter (Code and Performance Results Provided)
Date Sat, 10 Feb 2007 10:08:06 GMT


Michael McCandless updated LUCENE-565:

    Attachment: LUCENE-565.Feb2007.patch

OK I moved NewIndexModifier's methods into IndexWriter and did some
small refactoring, tightening up protections, fixed javadocs,
indentation, etc.  NewIndexModifier is now removed.

I like this solution much better!

I also increased the default number of deleted terms before a flush is
triggered from 10 to 1000.  These buffered terms use very little
memory so I think it makes sense to have a larger default?

So, this adds these public methods to IndexWriter:

  public void updateDocument(Term term, Document doc, Analyzer analyzer)
  public void updateDocument(Term term, Document doc)
  public synchronized void deleteDocuments(Term[] terms)
  public synchronized void deleteDocuments(Term term)
  public void setMaxBufferedDeleteTerms(int maxBufferedDeleteTerms)
  public int getMaxBufferedDeleteTerms()

And this public field:

  public final static int DEFAULT_MAX_BUFFERED_DELETE_TERMS = 10;

On the extensions points, we had previously added these 4:

  protected void doAfterFlushRamSegments(boolean flushedRamSegments)
  protected boolean timeToFlushRam()
  protected boolean anythingToFlushRam()
  protected boolean onlyRamDocsToFlush()

I would propose that instead we add only the first one above, but
rename it to "doAfterFlush()".  This is basically a callback that a
subclass could use to do its own thing after a flush but before a

But then I don't think we should add any of the others.  The
"timeToFlushRam()" callback isn't really needed now that we have a
public "flush()" method.  And the other two are very specific to how
IndexWriter implements RAM buffering/flushing and so unless/until we
can think of a use case that needs these I'm inclined to not include

Yonik, is there something in Solr that would need these last 2

I've attached the patch (LUCENE-565.Feb2007.patch) with these

> Supporting deleteDocuments in IndexWriter (Code and Performance Results Provided)
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>                 Key: LUCENE-565
>                 URL:
>             Project: Lucene - Java
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: Index
>            Reporter: Ning Li
>         Assigned To: Michael McCandless
>             Fix For: 2.1
>         Attachments: LUCENE-565.Feb2007.patch, NewIndexModifier.Jan2007.patch, NewIndexModifier.Jan2007.take2.patch,
NewIndexModifier.Jan2007.take3.patch, NewIndexModifier.Sept21.patch, perf-test-res.JPG, perf-test-res2.JPG,
> 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
> . 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.
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message