lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Danil ŢORIN <torin...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Proposal about Version API "relaxation"
Date Thu, 15 Apr 2010 12:32:35 GMT
All I ask is a way to migrate existing indexes to newer format.


On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 15:21, Robert Muir <rcmuir@gmail.com> wrote:

> its open source, if you feel this way, you can put the work to add features
> to some version branch from trunk in a backwards compatible way.
>
> Then this branch can have a backwards-compatible minor release with new
> features, but nothing ground-breaking.
>
> but this kinda stuff shouldnt hinder development on trunk.
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 8:17 AM, Danil ŢORIN <torindan@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Sometimes it's REALLY impossible to reindex, or has absolutely prohibitive
>> cost to do in a running production system (i can't shut it down for
>> maintainance, so i need a lot of hardware to reindex ~5 billion documents, i
>> have no idea what are the costs to retrieve that data all over again, but i
>> estimate it to be quite a lot)
>>
>> And providing a way to migrate existing indexes to new lucene is crucial
>> from my point of view.
>>
>> I don't care what this way is: calling optimize() with newer lucene or
>> running some tool that takes 5 days, it's ok with me.
>>
>> Just don't put me through full reindexing as I really don't have all that
>> data anymore.
>> It's not my data, i just receive it from clients, and provide a search
>> interface.
>>
>> It took years to build those indexes, rebuilding is not an option, and
>> staying with old lucene forever just sucks.
>>
>> Danil.
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 14:57, Robert Muir <rcmuir@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 7:52 AM, Shai Erera <serera@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Well ... I must say that I completely disagree w/ dropping index
>>>> structure back-support. Our customers will simply not hear of reindexing
10s
>>>> of TBs of content because of version upgrades. Such a decision is key to
>>>> Lucene adoption in large-scale projects. It's entirely not about whether
>>>> Lucene is a content store or not - content is stored on other systems, I
>>>> agree. But that doesn't mean reindexing it is tolerable.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I don't understand how its helpful to do a MAJOR version upgrade without
>>> reindexing... what in the world do you stand to gain from that?
>>>
>>> The idea here, is that development can be free of such hassles.
>>> Development should be this way.
>>>
>>> If you, Shai, need some feature X.Y.Z from Version 4 and don't want to
>>> reindex, and are willing to do the work to port it back to Version 3 in a
>>> completely backwards compatible way, then under this new scheme it can
>>> happen.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Robert Muir
>>> rcmuir@gmail.com
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Robert Muir
> rcmuir@gmail.com
>

Mime
View raw message