lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Uwe Schindler (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1960) Remove deprecated Field.Store.COMPRESS
Date Mon, 26 Oct 2009 08:56:59 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1960?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12769946#action_12769946
] 

Uwe Schindler commented on LUCENE-1960:
---------------------------------------

I do not know if this is a bug in 2.9.0, but it seems that segments with all documents deleted
are not automatically removed:

{code}
2009-10-24 17:08:15,264 INFO org.apache.lucene.index.CheckIndex -   4 of 14: name=_dlo docCount=5
2009-10-24 17:08:15,264 INFO org.apache.lucene.index.CheckIndex -     compound=true
2009-10-24 17:08:15,264 INFO org.apache.lucene.index.CheckIndex -     hasProx=true
2009-10-24 17:08:15,264 INFO org.apache.lucene.index.CheckIndex -     numFiles=2
2009-10-24 17:08:15,265 INFO org.apache.lucene.index.CheckIndex -     size (MB)=0.059
2009-10-24 17:08:15,265 INFO org.apache.lucene.index.CheckIndex -     diagnostics = {java.version=1.5.0_21,
lucene.version=2.9.0 817268P - 2009-09-21 10:25:09, os=SunOS, os.arch=amd64, java.vendor=Sun
Microsystems Inc., os.version=5.10, source=flush}
2009-10-24 17:08:15,265 INFO org.apache.lucene.index.CheckIndex -     has deletions [delFileName=_dlo_1.del]
2009-10-24 17:08:15,356 INFO org.apache.lucene.index.CheckIndex -     test: open reader.........OK
[5 deleted docs]
2009-10-24 17:08:15,356 INFO org.apache.lucene.index.CheckIndex -     test: fields..............OK
[136 fields]
2009-10-24 17:08:15,357 INFO org.apache.lucene.index.CheckIndex -     test: field norms.........OK
[136 fields]
2009-10-24 17:08:15,372 INFO org.apache.lucene.index.CheckIndex -     test: terms, freq, prox...OK
[1698 terms; 4236 terms/docs pairs; 0 tokens]
2009-10-24 17:08:15,373 INFO org.apache.lucene.index.CheckIndex -     test: stored fields.......OK
[0 total field count; avg ? fields per doc]
2009-10-24 17:08:15,373 INFO org.apache.lucene.index.CheckIndex -     test: term vectors........OK
[0 total vector count; avg ? term/freq vector fields per doc]
{code}

Shouldn't such segments not be removed automatically during the next merge?

But this would be another issue. In my opinion, we are fine with the current approach, the
longer optimization time is rectified by the larger index size because of no compression anymore
and the more heavyer initial merge without addRawDocument is only 30% slower (one time!).

+1 for committing

> Remove deprecated Field.Store.COMPRESS
> --------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: LUCENE-1960
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1960
>             Project: Lucene - Java
>          Issue Type: Task
>            Reporter: Michael Busch
>            Assignee: Michael Busch
>            Priority: Minor
>             Fix For: 3.0
>
>         Attachments: lucene-1960-1.patch, lucene-1960-1.patch, lucene-1960.patch, optimize-time.txt
>
>
> Also remove FieldForMerge and related code.

-- 
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


Mime
View raw message