Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-java-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 5360 invoked from network); 12 Apr 2009 17:02:40 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 12 Apr 2009 17:02:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 28972 invoked by uid 500); 12 Apr 2009 17:02:39 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-java-dev-archive@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 28874 invoked by uid 500); 12 Apr 2009 17:02:39 -0000 Mailing-List: contact java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list java-dev@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 28649 invoked by uid 99); 12 Apr 2009 17:02:38 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 12 Apr 2009 17:02:38 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2000.0 required=10.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received: from [140.211.11.140] (HELO brutus.apache.org) (140.211.11.140) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 12 Apr 2009 17:02:36 +0000 Received: from brutus (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by brutus.apache.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91A4A234C4B7 for ; Sun, 12 Apr 2009 10:02:15 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <921412066.1239555735595.JavaMail.jira@brutus> Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2009 10:02:15 -0700 (PDT) From: "Mark Miller (JIRA)" To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: [jira] Issue Comment Edited: (LUCENE-831) Complete overhaul of FieldCache API/Implementation In-Reply-To: <19567919.1173857169285.JavaMail.jira@brutus> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-JIRA-FingerPrint: 30527f35849b9dde25b450d4833f0394 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-831?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12698239#action_12698239 ] Mark Miller edited comment on LUCENE-831 at 4/12/09 10:00 AM: -------------------------------------------------------------- bq. Ugly. Well no worries yet :) Still in early design mode, so if it can be made better, I'm sure it will. Of course I'd love to get to 'everything works right for the right field automagically' as well - not sure that will fit into the scope of this issue though (though nothing saying this issue can't be further delayed). We will do the best we can regardless though. I'm kind of worried that any change is going to hurt Apps like Solr - if you end up using the new built in API, but also have code that must stick for a while with the old API (for multireader fieldcache or something), you'll likely increase RAM usage more than before - how much of a concern that ends up being, I'm not sure. I suppose eventually it has to become up to the upgrader to consider and deal with it if we want to move to segment level caching. *edit* Little behind on that worry I guess - we already pumped that problem out the door with 1483. Half in the clouds over here. was (Author: markrmiller@gmail.com): bq. Ugly. Well no worries yet :) Still in early design mode, so if it can be made better, I'm sure it will. Of course I'd love to get to 'everything works right for the right field automagically' as well - not sure that will fit into the scope of this issue though (though nothing saying this issue can't be further delayed). We will do the best we can regardless though. I'm kind of worried that any change is going to hurt Apps like Solr - if you end up using the new built in API, but also have code that must stick for a while with the old API (for multireader fieldcache or something), you'll likely increase RAM usage more than before - how much of a concern that ends up being, I'm not sure. I suppose eventually it has to become up to the upgrader to consider and deal with it if we want to move to segment level caching. > Complete overhaul of FieldCache API/Implementation > -------------------------------------------------- > > Key: LUCENE-831 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-831 > Project: Lucene - Java > Issue Type: Improvement > Components: Search > Reporter: Hoss Man > Assignee: Mark Miller > Fix For: 3.0 > > Attachments: ExtendedDocument.java, fieldcache-overhaul.032208.diff, fieldcache-overhaul.diff, fieldcache-overhaul.diff, LUCENE-831.03.28.2008.diff, LUCENE-831.03.30.2008.diff, LUCENE-831.03.31.2008.diff, LUCENE-831.patch, LUCENE-831.patch, LUCENE-831.patch, LUCENE-831.patch, LUCENE-831.patch, LUCENE-831.patch, LUCENE-831.patch, LUCENE-831.patch > > > Motivation: > 1) Complete overhaul the API/implementation of "FieldCache" type things... > a) eliminate global static map keyed on IndexReader (thus > eliminating synch block between completley independent IndexReaders) > b) allow more customization of cache management (ie: use > expiration/replacement strategies, disk backed caches, etc) > c) allow people to define custom cache data logic (ie: custom > parsers, complex datatypes, etc... anything tied to a reader) > d) allow people to inspect what's in a cache (list of CacheKeys) for > an IndexReader so a new IndexReader can be likewise warmed. > e) Lend support for smarter cache management if/when > IndexReader.reopen is added (merging of cached data from subReaders). > 2) Provide backwards compatibility to support existing FieldCache API with > the new implementation, so there is no redundent caching as client code > migrades to new API. -- 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