lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Michael McCandless (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Updated] (LUCENE-3102) Few issues with CachingCollector
Date Wed, 18 May 2011 15:49:48 GMT

     [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-3102?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]

Michael McCandless updated LUCENE-3102:
---------------------------------------

    Attachment: LUCENE-3102.patch

Patch.

I think I fixed TestGrouping to exercise the "no wrapped collector" and "replay twice" case
for CachingCollector.

> Few issues with CachingCollector
> --------------------------------
>
>                 Key: LUCENE-3102
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-3102
>             Project: Lucene - Java
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: core/search
>            Reporter: Shai Erera
>            Assignee: Shai Erera
>            Priority: Minor
>             Fix For: 3.2, 4.0
>
>         Attachments: LUCENE-3102-factory.patch, LUCENE-3102-nowrap.patch, LUCENE-3102-nowrap.patch,
LUCENE-3102.patch, LUCENE-3102.patch, LUCENE-3102.patch
>
>
> CachingCollector (introduced in LUCENE-1421) has few issues:
> # Since the wrapped Collector may support out-of-order collection, the document IDs cached
may be out-of-order (depends on the Query) and thus replay(Collector) will forward document
IDs out-of-order to a Collector that may not support it.
> # It does not clear cachedScores + cachedSegs upon exceeding RAM limits
> # I think that instead of comparing curScores to null, in order to determine if scores
are requested, we should have a specific boolean - for clarity
> # This check "if (base + nextLength > maxDocsToCache)" (line 168) can be relaxed?
E.g., what if nextLength is, say, 512K, and I cannot satisfy the maxDocsToCache constraint,
but if it was 10K I would? Wouldn't we still want to try and cache them?
> Also:
> * The TODO in line 64 (having Collector specify needsScores()) -- why do we need that
if CachingCollector ctor already takes a boolean "cacheScores"? I think it's better defined
explicitly than implicitly?
> * Let's introduce a factory method for creating a specialized version if scoring is requested
/ not (i.e., impl the TODO in line 189)
> * I think it's a useful collector, which stands on its own and not specific to grouping.
Can we move it to core?
> * How about using OpenBitSet instead of int[] for doc IDs?
> ** If the number of hits is big, we'd gain some RAM back, and be able to cache more entries
> ** NOTE: OpenBitSet can only be used for in-order collection only. So we can use that
if the wrapped Collector does not support out-of-order
> * Do you think we can modify this Collector to not necessarily wrap another Collector?
We have such Collector which stores (in-memory) all matching doc IDs + scores (if required).
Those are later fed into several processes that operate on them (e.g. fetch more info from
the index etc.). I am thinking, we can make CachingCollector *optionally* wrap another Collector
and then someone can reuse it by setting RAM limit to unlimited (we should have a constant
for that) in order to simply collect all matching docs + scores.
> * I think a set of dedicated unit tests for this class alone would be good.
> That's it so far. Perhaps, if we do all of the above, more things will pop up.

--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira

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


Mime
View raw message