lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Michael McCandless <luc...@mikemccandless.com>
Subject Re: [jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible indexing
Date Tue, 13 Oct 2009 15:00:52 GMT
Yes please!

Mike

On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 10:40 AM, Mark Miller <markrmiller@gmail.com> wrote:
> I can trunk it once more if you'd like - its already pretty out of date :)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
>
>

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