lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mark Miller <markrmil...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible indexing
Date Tue, 13 Oct 2009 14:40:33 GMT
I can trunk it once more if you'd like - its already pretty out of date :)

If you havn't started anyway ...


Michael McCandless wrote:
> OK I will cut a branch & commit Mark's last patch onto it, unless
> anyone has objections soonish...
>
> I'll also branch (twig?) the back compat branch so we can commit the
> patch there as well.
>
> Mike
>
> On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 10:50 PM, Mark Miller <markrmiller@gmail.com> wrote:
>   
>> SVN is about as good at merging branches as any of us are with a patch
>> and trunk unfortunately. But that can still be somewhat more convenient
>> than all these huge patches, with different people at different stages.
>>
>> Depends on how many people end up working on this though. Any more than
>> 2, and I think the branch has got to be worth it.
>>
>> From my perspective, it doesn't make any of the merging process any
>> easier - but it can be easier than juggling all these patches - you have
>> a central code base that can always be targeted for current merging.
>>
>> Michael Busch wrote:
>>     
>>> I think it's supposed to work pretty good - though I have no personal
>>> experience with merging branches with svn.
>>>
>>> I think we should try it - then we'll know! :)
>>>
>>>  Michael
>>>
>>> On 10/12/09 12:32 PM, Michael McCandless (JIRA) wrote:
>>>       
>>>>      [
>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12764799#action_12764799
>>>> ]
>>>>
>>>> Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-1458:
>>>> --------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> bq. Shall we create a flexible-indexing branch and commit this?
>>>>
>>>> I think this is a good idea.
>>>>
>>>> But I haven't played heavily w/ svn&  branching.  EG if we branch
>>>> now, and trunk moves fast (which it still is w/ deprecation
>>>> removals), are we going to have conflicts?  Or... is svn good about
>>>> merging branches?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>> Further steps towards flexible indexing
>>>>> ---------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>>                  Key: LUCENE-1458
>>>>>                  URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458
>>>>>              Project: Lucene - Java
>>>>>           Issue Type: New Feature
>>>>>           Components: Index
>>>>>     Affects Versions: 2.9
>>>>>             Reporter: Michael McCandless
>>>>>             Assignee: Michael McCandless
>>>>>             Priority: Minor
>>>>>          Attachments: LUCENE-1458-back-compat.patch,
>>>>> LUCENE-1458-back-compat.patch, LUCENE-1458-back-compat.patch,
>>>>> LUCENE-1458-back-compat.patch, LUCENE-1458-back-compat.patch,
>>>>> LUCENE-1458-back-compat.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch,
>>>>> LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch,
>>>>> LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch,
>>>>> LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch,
>>>>> LUCENE-1458.tar.bz2, LUCENE-1458.tar.bz2, LUCENE-1458.tar.bz2,
>>>>> LUCENE-1458.tar.bz2, LUCENE-1458.tar.bz2, LUCENE-1458.tar.bz2,
>>>>> LUCENE-1458.tar.bz2
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I attached a very rough checkpoint of my current patch, to get early
>>>>> feedback.  All tests pass, though back compat tests don't pass due to
>>>>> changes to package-private APIs plus certain bugs in tests that
>>>>> happened to work (eg call TermPostions.nextPosition() too many times,
>>>>> which the new API asserts against).
>>>>> [Aside: I think, when we commit changes to package-private APIs such
>>>>> that back-compat tests don't pass, we could go back, make a branch on
>>>>> the back-compat tag, commit changes to the tests to use the new
>>>>> package private APIs on that branch, then fix nightly build to use the
>>>>> tip of that branch?o]
>>>>> There's still plenty to do before this is committable! This is a
>>>>> rather large change:
>>>>>    * Switches to a new more efficient terms dict format.  This still
>>>>>      uses tii/tis files, but the tii only stores term&  long offset
>>>>>      (not a TermInfo).  At seek points, tis encodes term&  freq/prox
>>>>>      offsets absolutely instead of with deltas delta.  Also, tis/tii
>>>>>      are structured by field, so we don't have to record field number
>>>>>      in every term.
>>>>> .
>>>>>      On first 1 M docs of Wikipedia, tii file is 36% smaller (0.99 MB
>>>>>      ->  0.64 MB) and tis file is 9% smaller (75.5 MB ->  68.5
MB).
>>>>> .
>>>>>      RAM usage when loading terms dict index is significantly less
>>>>>      since we only load an array of offsets and an array of String (no
>>>>>      more TermInfo array).  It should be faster to init too.
>>>>> .
>>>>>      This part is basically done.
>>>>>    * Introduces modular reader codec that strongly decouples terms dict
>>>>>      from docs/positions readers.  EG there is no more TermInfo used
>>>>>      when reading the new format.
>>>>> .
>>>>>      There's nice symmetry now between reading&  writing in the codec
>>>>>      chain -- the current docs/prox format is captured in:
>>>>> {code}
>>>>> FormatPostingsTermsDictWriter/Reader
>>>>> FormatPostingsDocsWriter/Reader (.frq file) and
>>>>> FormatPostingsPositionsWriter/Reader (.prx file).
>>>>> {code}
>>>>>      This part is basically done.
>>>>>    * Introduces a new "flex" API for iterating through the fields,
>>>>>      terms, docs and positions:
>>>>> {code}
>>>>> FieldProducer ->  TermsEnum ->  DocsEnum ->  PostingsEnum
>>>>> {code}
>>>>>      This replaces TermEnum/Docs/Positions.  SegmentReader emulates the
>>>>>      old API on top of the new API to keep back-compat.
>>>>>
>>>>> Next steps:
>>>>>    * Plug in new codecs (pulsing, pfor) to exercise the modularity /
>>>>>      fix any hidden assumptions.
>>>>>    * Expose new API out of IndexReader, deprecate old API but emulate
>>>>>      old API on top of new one, switch all core/contrib users to the
>>>>>      new API.
>>>>>    * Maybe switch to AttributeSources as the base class for TermsEnum,
>>>>>      DocsEnum, PostingsEnum -- this would give readers API flexibility
>>>>>      (not just index-file-format flexibility).  EG if someone wanted
>>>>>      to store payload at the term-doc level instead of
>>>>>      term-doc-position level, you could just add a new attribute.
>>>>>    * Test performance&  iterate.
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>>>
>>>       
>> --
>> - Mark
>>
>> http://www.lucidimagination.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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
>
>   


-- 
- Mark

http://www.lucidimagination.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