lucene-java-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kevin Burton <bur...@newsmonster.org>
Subject [Fwd: PROPOSAL: Lucene external content store for stored fields]
Date Tue, 15 Jun 2004 18:33:19 GMT
Sent from the wrong email account and bounced :-/

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	PROPOSAL: Lucene external content store for stored fields
Date: 	Mon, 14 Jun 2004 17:42:19 -0700
From: 	Kevin Burton <burton@sofari.com>
To: 	Lucene Users List <lucene-user@jakarta.apache.org>



I created this proposal because we need this fixed at work. I want to go 
ahead and work on a vertical fix for our version of lucene and then 
submit this back to Jakarta. 

There seems to be a lot of interest here and I wanted to get feedback 
from the list before moving forward ...

Should I put this in the wiki?!

Kevin

** OVERVIEW **

Currently Lucene supports 'stored fields; where the content of these 
fields are
kept within the lucene index for use in the future.

While acceptable for small indexes, larger amounts of stored fields prevent:

- Fast index merges since the full content has to be continually merged.

- Storing the indexes in memory (since a LOT of memory would be required and
 this is cost prohibitive)

- Fast queries since block caching can't be used on the index data.

For example in our current setup our index size is 20G.  Nearly 90% of 
this is
content.  If we could store the content outside of Lucene our merges and
searches would be MUCH faster.  If we could store the index in MEMORY 
this could
be orders of magnitude faster.

** PROPOSAL **

Provide an external field storage mechanism which supports legacy indexes
without modification.  Content is stored in a "content segment". The only
changes would be a field with 3(or 4 if checksum enabled) values.

 - CS_SEGMENT

       Logical ID of the content segment.  This is an integer value.  
There is
       a global Lucene property named CS_ROOT which stores all the content.
       The segments are just flat files with pointers.  Segments are broken
       into logical pieces by time and size.  Usually 100M of content 
would be
       in one segment.

 - CS_OFFSET

       The byte offset of the field.

 - CS_LENGTH

       The length of the field.

 - CS_CHECKSUM

       Optional checksum to verify that the content is correct when fetched
       from the index.

 - The field value here would be exactly 'N:O:L' where N is the segment 
number,
   O is the offset, and L is the length.  O and L are 64bit values.  N 
is a 32
   bit value (though 64bit wouldn't really hurt).

This mechanism allows for the external storage of any named field.
  
CS_OFFSET, and CS_LENGTH allow use with RandomAccessFile and new NIO 
code for
efficient content lookup.  (Though filehandle caching should probably be 
used).

Since content is broken into logical 100M segments the underlying 
filesystem can
orgnize the file into contiguous blocks for efficient non-fragmented lookup.

File manipulation is easy and indexes can be merged by simply 
concatenating the
second file to the end of the first.  (Though the segment, offset, and 
length
need to be updated).  (FIXME: I think I need to think about this more 
since I
will have < 100M per syncs)

Supporting full unicode is important.  Full java.lang.String storage is used
with String.getBytes() so we should be able to avoid unicode issues.  If 
Java
has a correct java.lang.String representation it's possible easily add 
unicode
support just by serializing the byte representation. (Note that the JDK says
that the DEFAULT system char encoding is used so if this is ever changed it
might break the index)

While Linux and modern versions of Windows (not sure about OSX) support 
64bit
filesystems the 4G storage boundary of 32bit filesystems (ext2 is an 
example)
are an issue.  Using smaller indexes can prevent this but eventually segment
lookup in the filesystem will be slow.  This will only happen within 
terabyte
storage systems so hopefully the developer has migrated to another (modern)
filesystem such as XFS.

** FEATURES **

   - Must be able to replicate indexes easily to other hosts.

   - Adding content to the index must be CHEAP

   - Deletes need to be cheap (these are cheap for older content.  Just 
discard
     older indexes)

   - Filesystem needs to be able to optimize storage

   - Must support UNICODE and binary content (images, blobs, byte arrays,
     serialized objects, etc)

   - Filesystem metadata operations should be fast.  Since content is 
kept in
     LARGE indexes this is easy to avoid.

   - Migration to the new system from legacy indexes should be fast and
     painless for future developers
  

-- 

Please reply using PGP.

   http://peerfear.org/pubkey.asc    
   
   NewsMonster - http://www.newsmonster.org/
   
Kevin A. Burton, Location - San Francisco, CA, Cell - 415.595.9965
      AIM/YIM - sfburtonator,  Web - http://peerfear.org/
GPG fingerprint: 5FB2 F3E2 760E 70A8 6174 D393 E84D 8D04 99F1 4412
 IRC - freenode.net #infoanarchy | #p2p-hackers | #newsmonster




-- 

Please reply using PGP.

    http://peerfear.org/pubkey.asc    
    
    NewsMonster - http://www.newsmonster.org/
    
Kevin A. Burton, Location - San Francisco, CA, Cell - 415.595.9965
       AIM/YIM - sfburtonator,  Web - http://peerfear.org/
GPG fingerprint: 5FB2 F3E2 760E 70A8 6174 D393 E84D 8D04 99F1 4412
  IRC - freenode.net #infoanarchy | #p2p-hackers | #newsmonster


Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message