lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Shai Erera <ser...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Proposal about Version API "relaxation"
Date Thu, 15 Apr 2010 12:31:49 GMT
I can live w/ that Earwin ... I prefer the ongoing upgrades still, but I
won't hold off the back-compat policy change vote because of that.

Shai

On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 3:30 PM, Earwin Burrfoot <earwin@gmail.com> wrote:

> I think an index upgrade tool is okay?
> While you still definetly have to code it, things like "if idxVer==m
> doOneStuff elseif idxVer==n doOtherStuff else blowUp" are kept away
> from lucene innards and we all profit?
>
> On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 16:21, 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
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Kirill Zakharenko/Кирилл Захаренко (earwin@gmail.com)
> Home / Mobile: +7 (495) 683-567-4 / +7 (903) 5-888-423
> ICQ: 104465785
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>

Mime
View raw message