lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jason Rutherglen (JIRA)" <>
Subject [jira] Commented: (LUCENE-2312) Search on IndexWriter's RAM Buffer
Date Tue, 21 Dec 2010 15:12:06 GMT


Jason Rutherglen commented on LUCENE-2312:

bq. how will we incrementally update the FC entry on opening a new RT reader? Don't we have
to fully re-invert?

Right, fully re-inverting is inefficient so we need to add field cache values as we're indexing,
which itself could be inefficient in some other way, though I think this is somewhat unlikely,
maybe the conversion from string -> numbers?

bq. DocValues are much easier to update incrementally since they are set during indexing.
(But: we still need to figure out how DocValues intersects w/ RT!).

What's wrong with incrementally adding to the FC?  Also where are DocValues set during indexing?
 In trunk they're only referenced in the o.a.l.s.function package.

> Search on IndexWriter's RAM Buffer
> ----------------------------------
>                 Key: LUCENE-2312
>                 URL:
>             Project: Lucene - Java
>          Issue Type: New Feature
>          Components: Search
>    Affects Versions: Realtime Branch
>            Reporter: Jason Rutherglen
>            Assignee: Michael Busch
>             Fix For: Realtime Branch
>         Attachments: LUCENE-2312-FC.patch, LUCENE-2312.patch
> In order to offer user's near realtime search, without incurring
> an indexing performance penalty, we can implement search on
> IndexWriter's RAM buffer. This is the buffer that is filled in
> RAM as documents are indexed. Currently the RAM buffer is
> flushed to the underlying directory (usually disk) before being
> made searchable. 
> Todays Lucene based NRT systems must incur the cost of merging
> segments, which can slow indexing. 
> Michael Busch has good suggestions regarding how to handle deletes using max doc ids.
> The area that isn't fully fleshed out is the terms dictionary,
> which needs to be sorted prior to queries executing. Currently
> IW implements a specialized hash table. Michael B has a
> suggestion here: 

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