Mailing-List: contact java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
Message-ID: <107381801.1259011899614.JavaMail.jira@brutus>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 21:31:39 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Michael McCandless (JIRA)" <jira@apache.org>
To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: [jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
 indexing
In-Reply-To: <1307591248.1227004424235.JavaMail.jira@brutus>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12781635#action_12781635 ] 

Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-1458:
--------------------------------------------

LUCENE-510 (fixed in 2.4 release) cutover new indexes to UTF8.

Before 2.4, here's what IndexOutput.writeString looked like:

{code}
  public void writeChars(String s, int start, int length)
       throws IOException {
    final int end = start + length;
    for (int i = start; i < end; i++) {
      final int code = (int)s.charAt(i);
      if (code >= 0x01 && code <= 0x7F)
	writeByte((byte)code);
      else if (((code >= 0x80) && (code <= 0x7FF)) || code == 0) {
	writeByte((byte)(0xC0 | (code >> 6)));
	writeByte((byte)(0x80 | (code & 0x3F)));
      } else {
	writeByte((byte)(0xE0 | (code >>> 12)));
	writeByte((byte)(0x80 | ((code >> 6) & 0x3F)));
	writeByte((byte)(0x80 | (code & 0x3F)));
      }
    }
  }
{code}

which I think can represent unpaired surrogates & \uFFFF just fine?

> 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.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, LUCENE-1458_termenum_bwcompat.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch
>
>
> 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.

-- 
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