lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From mark harwood <markharw...@yahoo.co.uk>
Subject Re: Fwd: Decouple Filter from BitSet: API change and xml query parser
Date Fri, 10 Aug 2007 11:12:00 GMT
>>Could someone give me a clue as to why the test case TestRemoteCachingWrapperFilter
fails with the patch applied?

Regardless of the reasons for this particular test failure, this code is not safe in other
ways which the test cases don't test for.

To restate the issue: Matcher is not designed to be threadsafe and CachingWrapperFilter (or
any other example of existing caching strategies) cannot therefore simply be changed to cache
Matchers in place of the existing scheme of caching bitsets (which are currently used in a
thread-safe manner by all Lucene code). Bitsets don't offer the notion of a cursor (required
for "next" methods) while Matcher does which spoils it's potential for reuse/shared use. The
remoting test code you refer to uses your modified CachingWrapperFilter which has swapped
Matchers for BitSets and so I would anticipate thread safety issues if the tests actually
tried to share/reuse the same Matcher.

>>Finally, are DocIdSet and DocIdSetIterator currently part of Lucene? I don't know
how to go about these.

These are two of the names I gave to a notional set of 3 services that I outlined here:

 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-584#action_12518642

I introduced this terminology to the discussion because:
1) It describes 2 services that are currently combined in Matcher that I feel need to be separated
2) It uses a more generic description of the services offered that can be useful when considering
other applications of the services (e.g. category count and filtering logic both can use cached
sets of doc IDs. DocIdSet seemed to describe the service more generically than "Matcher")


I'm happy to drop use of these terms from this discussion if you feel they are not useful.

Cheers
Mark


----- Original Message ----
From: Paul Elschot <paul.elschot@xs4all.nl>
To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
Sent: Friday, 10 August, 2007 8:45:09 AM
Subject: Fwd: Decouple Filter from BitSet: API change and xml query parser

Taking this to java-dev only.

As I said at the jira issue, I'd like to have all test cases pass again,
and I'm not happy with the current version of the patch to the xml query 
parser either.

Some test cases currently fail maybe because they use RMI and the
new version of Filter does serialize well because the result of getMatcher()
is not serializable.
It should be possible to fix this by moving Filter to BitSetFilter in these 
cases, see also below.
The problem is that I don't know how to do this because I have never
used java RMI myself.

Could someone give me a clue as to why the test case
TestRemoteCachingWrapperFilter fails with the patch applied?

As for the API change, how to move from the current:

public class Filter {
  abstract public BitSet bits(IndexReader); 
}

to:

public class Filter {
  abstract public Matcher getMatcher(IndexReader); 
}

The patch proposes to do this by moving all current use of Filter to
BitSetFilter:

public class BitSetFilter extends Filter {
  abstract public BitSet bits(IndexReader); 
}


Would it be good to have an intermediate version of Filter like this
one:

public class Filter {
  /** deprecated, use class BitSetFilter instead */
  public BitSet bits(IndexReader); {return null;}
  abstract public Matcher getMatcher(IndexReader); 
}


Finally, are DocIdSet and DocIdSetIterator currently part of Lucene?
I don't know how to go about these.


Regards,
Paul Elschot








----------  Forwarded Message  ----------

Subject: [jira] Commented: (LUCENE-584) Decouple Filter from BitSet
Date: Friday 10 August 2007 01:15
From: "Mark Harwood (JIRA)" <jira@apache.org>
To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org


    
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-584?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12518868
] 

Mark Harwood commented on LUCENE-584:
-------------------------------------

OK, I appreciate caching may not be a top priority in this proposal but I have 
live systems in production using XMLQueryParser and which use the existing 
core facilities for caching. As it stands this proposal breaks this 
functionality (see "FIXME" in contrib's CachedFilterBuilder and my concerns 
over use of  unthreadsafe Matcher in the core class CachingWrapperFilter)

I am obviously concerned by this and keen to help shape a solution which 
preserves the existing capabilities while adding your new functionality. I'm 
not sure I share your view that support for caching can be treated as a 
separate issue to be dealt with at a later date. There are a larger number of 
changes proposed in this patch and if the design does not at least consider 
future caching issues now, I suspect much will have to be reworked later. The 
change I can envisage most clearly is expressed in my concern that the 
DocIdSet and DocIdSetIterator services I outlined are being combined in 
Matcher as it stands now and these functions will have to be separated.

Cheers
Mark

> Decouple Filter from BitSet
> ---------------------------
>
>                 Key: LUCENE-584
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-584
>             Project: Lucene - Java
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: Search
>    Affects Versions: 2.0.1
>            Reporter: Peter Schäfer
>            Priority: Minor
>         Attachments: bench-diff.txt, bench-diff.txt, 
Matcher1-ground-20070730.patch, Matcher2-default-20070730.patch, 
Matcher3-core-20070730.patch, Matcher4-contrib-misc-20070730.patch, 
Matcher5-contrib-queries-20070730.patch, Matcher6-contrib-xml-20070730.patch, 
Some Matchers.zip
>
>
> {code}
> package org.apache.lucene.search;
> public abstract class Filter implements java.io.Serializable 
> {
>   public abstract AbstractBitSet bits(IndexReader reader) throws 
IOException;
> }
> public interface AbstractBitSet 
> {
>   public boolean get(int index);
> }
> {code}
> It would be useful if the method =Filter.bits()= returned an abstract 
interface, instead of =java.util.BitSet=.
> Use case: there is a very large index, and, depending on the user's 
privileges, only a small portion of the index is actually visible.
> Sparsely populated =java.util.BitSet=s are not efficient and waste lots of 
memory. It would be desirable to have an alternative BitSet implementation 
with smaller memory footprint.
> Though it _is_ possibly to derive classes from =java.util.BitSet=, it was 
obviously not designed for that purpose.
> That's why I propose to use an interface instead. The default implementation 
could still delegate to =java.util.BitSet=.

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





-------------------------------------------------------

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






      ___________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Answers - Got a question? Someone out there knows the answer. Try it
now.
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/ 

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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