lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Robert Muir <rcm...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Proposal about Version API "relaxation"
Date Thu, 15 Apr 2010 12:21:00 GMT
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 Ε’ORIN <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