lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jason Rutherglen (JIRA)" <>
Subject [jira] Commented: (LUCENE-2324) Per thread DocumentsWriters that write their own private segments
Date Thu, 22 Apr 2010 19:06:06 GMT


Jason Rutherglen commented on LUCENE-2324:

{quote}This means that we don't have to remap deletes


{quote}the pooled SegmentReaders that read the flushed segments
can use arrays of sequenceIDs instead of BitSets?{quote}

Ok, that'd be an improvement. In order to understand all the
logic, I'd need to see a prototype, I can't really regurgitate
what I've read thus far. Are there any concurrency issues with
the seq arrays? Like say if a reader is iterating a posting
list? I guess not because we're always incrementing? 

{quote}safeSeqID is always smaller than any buffered doc or
buffered delete in DW or DWPT.{quote}

Can you elaborate on this? Wouldn't safeSeqID be greater than
buffered doc or deleted doc due to add
docs and interleaving?

Also can we modify the terminology, perhaps committed seq id is
better? To me that's a little more clear. Maybe it'd be good to
start a wiki on this so we can have a master doc we're all
referring to (kind of a Solr thing that because the projects are
merged we can try for?) ;)

> Per thread DocumentsWriters that write their own private segments
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>                 Key: LUCENE-2324
>                 URL:
>             Project: Lucene - Java
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: Index
>            Reporter: Michael Busch
>            Assignee: Michael Busch
>            Priority: Minor
>             Fix For: 3.1
>         Attachments: lucene-2324.patch, LUCENE-2324.patch
> See LUCENE-2293 for motivation and more details.
> I'm copying here Mike's summary he posted on 2293:
> Change the approach for how we buffer in RAM to a more isolated
> approach, whereby IW has N fully independent RAM segments
> in-process and when a doc needs to be indexed it's added to one of
> them. Each segment would also write its own doc stores and
> "normal" segment merging (not the inefficient merge we now do on
> flush) would merge them. This should be a good simplification in
> the chain (eg maybe we can remove the *PerThread classes). The
> segments can flush independently, letting us make much better
> concurrent use of IO & CPU.

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