Mailing-List: contact dev-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@lucene.apache.org
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 16:50:11 +1100 (NCT)
From: "Shai Erera (JIRA)" <jira@apache.org>
To: dev@lucene.apache.org
Message-ID: <920141298.67971.1347429011229.JavaMail.jiratomcat@arcas>
In-Reply-To: <1736612784.105512.1343303434617.JavaMail.jiratomcat@issues-vm>
Subject: [jira] [Commented] (LUCENE-4258) Incremental Field Updates through
 Stacked Segments
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-4258?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13453739#comment-13453739 ] 

Shai Erera commented on LUCENE-4258:
------------------------------------

We will take care of DocValues too, eventually. I think this can be handled in a separate issue though.

bq. and would already solve most use-cases 

I have a problem with that statement. Robert thinks that the most common use cases are to replace a field's content entirely. In our world (Sivan and mine's), updating a field's terms (removing / adding single terms) is the most common use case. And perhaps in your world updating DocValues for scoring purposes is the most common use case.

Therefore I don't think that there is one common use case, and therefore IMO we shouldn't aim at solving one first. Personally, DocValues are relatively new (compared to posting lists and payloads) and therefore I believe that being able to update them should come second (just because I estimate they are not as widely used as the others). But that's just my opinion -- obviously one that relies solely on DocValues would state otherwise :).

The design currently doesn't cover DocValues at all. I think, in order to keep this issue focused, we should handle that in a separate issue after we land updateable fields.

bq. On slide 4 one of the enumerated operations is field deletion but I am not sure how to do it with the proposed API on slide 5?

Good point. Well, you could say that replaceField("f", "value") called as replaceField("f", null) would mean "delete 'f'". That should work, but perhaps we can come up with something more explicit.

                
> Incremental Field Updates through Stacked Segments
> --------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: LUCENE-4258
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-4258
>             Project: Lucene - Core
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: core/index
>            Reporter: Sivan Yogev
>         Attachments: IncrementalFieldUpdates.odp, LUCENE-4258-API-changes.patch, LUCENE-4258-inner-changes.patch
>
>   Original Estimate: 2,520h
>  Remaining Estimate: 2,520h
>
> Shai and I would like to start working on the proposal to Incremental Field Updates outlined here (http://markmail.org/message/zhrdxxpfk6qvdaex).

--
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: 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