lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jason Rutherglen (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] Commented: (LUCENE-2680) Improve how IndexWriter flushes deletes against existing segments
Date Tue, 02 Nov 2010 16:42:25 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2680?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12927488#action_12927488
] 

Jason Rutherglen commented on LUCENE-2680:
------------------------------------------

bq. The most recent one "wins", and we should do only one delete (per segment) for that term.

How should we define this recency and why does it matter?  Should it be per term/query or
for the entire BD?

I think there's an issue with keeping lastSegmentIndex in DW, while it's easy to maintain,
Mike had mentioned keeping the lastSegmentIndex per BufferedDeletes object.  Coalescing the
BDs should be easier to maintain after successful merge than maintaining a separate BD for
them.  We'll see.

I'll put together another patch with these changes.

> Improve how IndexWriter flushes deletes against existing segments
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: LUCENE-2680
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2680
>             Project: Lucene - Java
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>            Reporter: Michael McCandless
>             Fix For: 4.0
>
>         Attachments: LUCENE-2680.patch
>
>
> IndexWriter buffers up all deletes (by Term and Query) and only
> applies them if 1) commit or NRT getReader() is called, or 2) a merge
> is about to kickoff.
> We do this because, for a large index, it's very costly to open a
> SegmentReader for every segment in the index.  So we defer as long as
> we can.  We do it just before merge so that the merge can eliminate
> the deleted docs.
> But, most merges are small, yet in a big index we apply deletes to all
> of the segments, which is really very wasteful.
> Instead, we should only apply the buffered deletes to the segments
> that are about to be merged, and keep the buffer around for the
> remaining segments.
> I think it's not so hard to do; we'd have to have generations of
> pending deletions, because the newly merged segment doesn't need the
> same buffered deletions applied again.  So every time a merge kicks
> off, we pinch off the current set of buffered deletions, open a new
> set (the next generation), and record which segment was created as of
> which generation.
> This should be a very sizable gain for large indices that mix
> deletes, though, less so in flex since opening the terms index is much
> faster.

-- 
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: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org


Mime
View raw message