lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Ivan Stojanovic (Commented) (JIRA)" <>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (LUCENE-3838) IndexWriter.maybeMerge() removes deleted documents from index (Lucene 3.1.0 to 3.5.0)
Date Mon, 05 Mar 2012 13:45:57 GMT


Ivan Stojanovic commented on LUCENE-3838:

Hi Michael,

of course this happens in version 3.1.0 as stated in the title (in parentheses).

Actually, it has never been stated that this is an internal implementation detail (if I can
remember correctly). I'm very sure that we are not the only ones who were relying on this
behavior. Also, this backward compatibility break wasn't stated in 3.1.0 changes log.

Anyway, we already have an ID field but we can't rely on it for long running operations. Suppose
that an index export is in progress while there is a bunch of add/delete/search operations.
Or worse, suppose that a batch delete is in progress (driven by a filter criteria) at the
same time. I have to say here that we are using only one searcher per index here and also
we are working with farms of indexes with size of 3-5 millions of documents per index. I can't
even imagine the use of more than one searcher per index here. One searcher per index also
gives us the best performance which is our top concern. Another thing. When an admin performs
optimization then the index is locked so no one can access it in order to avoid disk overuse.

We also have a deletes filter :)
It is used as a ram filter that buffers deletes using BitSet and occasionally flushing this
buffer to index (deleting documents marked as deletes). This gives us the lightning performance
related to both deleting documents and search operation relying on a custom Collector wrapping
this filter. If we used an application filter to skip documents than the search would suffer
a significant slow down because of communication with an application filter for each document
retrieved from index. if we do this than our ultra fast Lucene driven application loses its

The suggestion with a custom codec sounds very promising. I only don't understand if we will
have to wait for a Lucene 4.0 release for a custom codec implementation (with maybe an API
that allows that) or I need to implement it for Lucene trunk. If I need to implement it for
trunk than can you please give me a starting point where to begin from? I must say that I
haven't dived deep in Lucene merge functionality. Also, can this approach differentiate between
maybeMerge() and forceMerge(). We need to support document removal in forceMerge(), of course.

Greatest regards,
> IndexWriter.maybeMerge() removes deleted documents from index (Lucene 3.1.0 to 3.5.0)
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>                 Key: LUCENE-3838
>                 URL:
>             Project: Lucene - Java
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: core/index
>    Affects Versions: 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5
>         Environment: Windows, Linux, OSX
>            Reporter: Ivan Stojanovic
>            Priority: Blocker
>              Labels: api-change
>         Attachments:
> My company uses Lucene for high performance, heavy loaded farms of translation repositories
with hundreds of simultaneous add/delete/update/search/retrieve threads. In order to support
this complex architecture beside other things and tricks used here I rely on docId-s being
unchanged until I ask that explicitly (using IndexWriter.optimize() - IndexWriter.forceMerge()).
> For this behavior LogMergePolicy is used.
> This worked fine until we raised the Lucene version from 3.0.2 to 3.5.0. Until version
3.1.0 merge triggerred by IndexWriter.addDocument() didn't expunge deleted documents ensuring
that docId-s stayed unchanged and making some critical jobs possible without impact on index
size. IndexWriter.optimize() did the actual deleted documents removal.
> From Lucene version 3.1.0 IndexWriter.maybeMerge() does the same thing as IndexWriter.forceMerge()
regarding deleted documents. There is no difference. This leads to unpredictable internal
index structure changes during simple document add (and possible delete) operations and in
undefined point in time. I looked into the Lucene source code and can definitely confirm this.
> This issue makes our Lucene client code totally unusable.
> Solution steps:
> 1) add a flag somewhere that will control whether the deleted documents should be removed
in maybeMerge(). Note that this is only a half of what we need here.
> 2) make forceMerge() always remove deleted documents no matter if maybeMerge() removes
them or not. Alternatively, there can be another parameter added to forceMerge() that will
also tell if deleted documents should be removed from index or not.
> The sample JUnit code that can replicate this issue is added below.
> public class TempTest {
>     private Analyzer _analyzer = new KeywordAnalyzer();
>     @Test
>     public void testIndex() throws Exception {
> 	File indexDir = new File("sample-index");
> 	if (indexDir.exists()) {
> 	    indexDir.delete();
> 	}
> 	FSDirectory index =;
> 	Document doc;
> 	IndexWriter writer = createWriter(index, true);
> 	try {
> 	    doc = new Document();
> 	    doc.add(new Field("field", "text0", Field.Store.YES,
> 		    Field.Index.ANALYZED));
> 	    writer.addDocument(doc);
> 	    doc = new Document();
> 	    doc.add(new Field("field", "text1", Field.Store.YES,
> 		    Field.Index.ANALYZED));
> 	    writer.addDocument(doc);
> 	    doc = new Document();
> 	    doc.add(new Field("field", "text2", Field.Store.YES,
> 		    Field.Index.ANALYZED));
> 	    writer.addDocument(doc);
> 	    writer.commit();
> 	} finally {
> 	    writer.close();
> 	}
> 	IndexReader reader =, false);
> 	try {
> 	    reader.deleteDocument(1);
> 	} finally {
> 	    reader.close();
> 	}
> 	writer = createWriter(index, false);
> 	try {
> 	    for (int i = 3; i < 100; i++) {
> 		doc = new Document();
> 		doc.add(new Field("field", "text" + i, Field.Store.YES,
> 			Field.Index.ANALYZED));
> 		writer.addDocument(doc);
> 		writer.commit();
> 	    }
> 	} finally {
> 	    writer.close();
> 	}
> 	boolean deleted;
> 	String text;
> 	reader =, true);
> 	try {
> 	    deleted = reader.isDeleted(1);
> 	    text = reader.document(1).get("field");
> 	} finally {
> 	    reader.close();
> 	}
> 	assertTrue(deleted); // This line breaks
> 	assertEquals("text1", text);
>     }
>     private MergePolicy createEngineMergePolicy() {
> 	LogDocMergePolicy mergePolicy = new LogDocMergePolicy();
> 	mergePolicy.setCalibrateSizeByDeletes(false);
> 	mergePolicy.setUseCompoundFile(true);
> 	mergePolicy.setNoCFSRatio(1.0);
> 	return mergePolicy;
>     }
>     private IndexWriter createWriter(Directory index, boolean create)
> 	    throws Exception {
> 	IndexWriterConfig iwConfig = new IndexWriterConfig(Version.LUCENE_35,
> 		_analyzer);
> 	iwConfig.setOpenMode(create ? IndexWriterConfig.OpenMode.CREATE
> 		: IndexWriterConfig.OpenMode.APPEND);
> 	iwConfig.setMergePolicy(createEngineMergePolicy());
> 	iwConfig.setMergeScheduler(new ConcurrentMergeScheduler());
> 	return new IndexWriter(index, iwConfig);
>     }
> }

This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators:!default.jspa
For more information on JIRA, see:


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message