lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Robert Muir (JIRA)" <>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (LUCENE-4372) CachingCollector.create(boolean, boolean, double) is trappy
Date Mon, 10 Sep 2012 15:54:07 GMT


Robert Muir commented on LUCENE-4372:

CachingCollector is an optimization. If you can spare 10 MB of cache, and you happen to execute
queries that answer #documents that can be cached within that limit, then as in the case Yonik
describes, you can execute the query once, collect the docs (by a real Collector) and cache
them (CachingCollector) in order to replay to another Collector. If there wasn't enough RAM,
you cannot use replay() (you'll hit IllegalStateEx).

Right but then when we run out of cache, shouldnt we dumping the existing cache to the underlying
collector first? What am I missing?

it seems to me we just throw away the cache completely and then start collecting, thats why
it doesnt make a lot of sense to me:

          if (nextLength <= 0) {
            // Too many docs to collect -- clear cache
            curDocs = null;

> CachingCollector.create(boolean, boolean, double) is trappy
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>                 Key: LUCENE-4372
>                 URL:
>             Project: Lucene - Core
>          Issue Type: Task
>            Reporter: Robert Muir
> Followup to LUCENE-3102.
> Shai proposed a method that just caches all scores so they can be replayed:
> {quote}
> 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.
> {quote}
> But Mike had concerns about the RAM usage:
> {quote}
> I'd actually rather not have the constant – ie, I don't want to make
> it easy to be unlimited? It seems too dangerous... I'd rather your
> code has to spell out 10*1024 so you realize you're saying 10 GB (for
> example).
> {quote}
> My concern here is what happens when you dont specify enough, I think those hits are
just silently dropped (which is worse than using lots of RAM).

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

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

View raw message