Mailing-List: contact dev-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@lucene.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of serera@gmail.com designates
 74.125.82.48 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type;
        b=CeGLcYiqhYRTw2iK8cRz8q4ShxijfWO13BrsGmgA+iBaTAJrySvI7XkdsNADO5EQCZ
         BYGAJwuJHnJtVYglb5UvdYgdKxAUUrP9DKY1aFp8ScpV6VZFtxrJaVWGLnW+eqArv171
         ZuXnb0JRIERgYm3tL+OzOdV3Z4tzkOefVXiRk=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 15:39:19 +0300
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=pZyB3w3keQ4e=GYRSyzQs8sgJeQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: shared doc stores and IW.addIndexes
From: Shai Erera <serera@gmail.com>
To: dev@lucene.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0015176f1a64a556f304a3f0c292

--0015176f1a64a556f304a3f0c292
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Hi

If I remember correctly, we no longer share doc stores (starting 3.1.0).
While working on LUCENE-3126 I was thinking that perhaps addIndexes does not
work well, or at least can be improved in that area.

Today, if you add an index (e.g. created with 2.9/3.0) and some segments
share doc stores, they will still share the doc stores after copy. However,
what if you use a merge policy, e.g. TieredMP, which assumes it can merge
segments out-of-order? Will it work w/ shared doc-stores? How does the rest
of the code work w/ segments that share doc stores?

I assume that since we support index-format backwards, then the code works
well. So maybe this isn't a bug. However, shouldn't we untie the doc stores,
even if it means copying the DS to each segment, in IW.addIndexes?

Shai

--0015176f1a64a556f304a3f0c292
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">Hi<br><br>If I remember correctly, we no longer share doc =
stores (starting 3.1.0). While working on LUCENE-3126 I was thinking that p=
erhaps addIndexes does not work well, or at least can be improved in that a=
rea.<br>
<br>Today, if you add an index (e.g. created with 2.9/3.0) and some segment=
s share doc stores, they will still share the doc stores after copy. Howeve=
r, what if you use a merge policy, e.g. TieredMP, which assumes it can merg=
e segments out-of-order? Will it work w/ shared doc-stores? How does the re=
st of the code work w/ segments that share doc stores?<br>
<br>I assume that since we support index-format backwards, then the code wo=
rks well. So maybe this isn&#39;t a bug. However, shouldn&#39;t we untie th=
e doc stores, even if it means copying the DS to each segment, in IW.addInd=
exes?<br>
<br>Shai<br></div>

--0015176f1a64a556f304a3f0c292--