Michael McCandless
Fri, 05 Sep 2008 09:24:29 -0700
Shalin Shekhar Mangar wrote:
On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 6:03 PM, Michael McCandless < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:Large segment merges will also send huge traffic. You may just want to send all updates (document adds/deletes) to all slaves directly? It'd be nice if you could somehow NOT sync the effects of segment merging, but dosync doc add/deletes... not sure how to do that.As Noble said, that is another option we can consider.
Well this is certainly a nice challenging problem :)
Thanks for the explanation Mike. The core problem is to make sure bothindices are in sync. The log replication helps us because we compare the master and slave index with a reference point (log position). If it becomes possible for us to specify a version number during a commit, we can use themaster's version number on the slave. This can help us compare the twoindices. Not sure if that API change will be generally useful. Thoughts?
I think this could be a generally useful feature?So you're thinking IndexWriter.commit() would take an optional opaque argument (maybe a String for generality?) that's recorded into the segments_N and could then later be retrieved by IndexReader and IndexWriter?
After a merge completes, should it just carry forward whatever was stored on the last segments_N?
We should call it something other than version, which already exists -- maybe "commitDetails", "commitComment", "commitUserData" or something?
Mike --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]