lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jason Rutherglen (JIRA)" <>
Subject [jira] Updated: (LUCENE-2047) IndexWriter should immediately resolve deleted docs to docID in near-real-time mode
Date Wed, 18 Nov 2009 03:18:39 GMT


Jason Rutherglen updated LUCENE-2047:

    Attachment: LUCENE-2047.patch

* There's pending deletes (aka updateDoc generated deletes) per
SR. They're stored in a pending deletes BV in SR. 

* commitMergedDeletes maps the pending deletes into the

* DW.abort clears the pending deletes from all SRs.

* On successful flush, the SR pending deletes are merged into the
primary del docs BV. 

* Deletes are still buffered, however they're only applied to the
newly flushed segment (rather than all readers). If the applying
fails, I think we need to keep some of the rollback from the
original applyDeletes?

* The foreground deleting seems to break a couple of tests in

Mike, you mentioned testing getReader missing deletes etc (in
response to potential file handle leakage), which test or
benchmark did you use for this?

> IndexWriter should immediately resolve deleted docs to docID in near-real-time mode
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>                 Key: LUCENE-2047
>                 URL:
>             Project: Lucene - Java
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: Index
>            Reporter: Michael McCandless
>            Assignee: Michael McCandless
>            Priority: Minor
>             Fix For: 3.1
>         Attachments: LUCENE-2047.patch, LUCENE-2047.patch, LUCENE-2047.patch
> Spinoff from LUCENE-1526.
> When deleteDocuments(Term) is called, we currently always buffer the
> Term and only later, when it's time to flush deletes, resolve to
> docIDs.  This is necessary because we don't in general hold
> SegmentReaders open.
> But, when IndexWriter is in NRT mode, we pool the readers, and so
> deleting in the foreground is possible.
> It's also beneficial, in that in can reduce the turnaround time when
> reopening a new NRT reader by taking this resolution off the reopen
> path.  And if multiple threads are used to do the deletion, then we
> gain concurrency, vs reopen which is not concurrent when flushing the
> deletes.

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:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message