[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BLUR-220?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13796825#comment-13796825
]
Ravikumar commented on BLUR-220:
--------------------------------
I still don't understand the effect of co-location of all records of a row, in
a given segment.
Are we looking at allocating entire set-of-segments to one single row
[huge-row, in this case], by repeatedly re-indexing?
Future segment merges will most probably be breaking this carefully laid out
arrangement, right?
The reason I am asking is, Solr/ElasticSearch must also have a concept of a
rowId etc...., but there is no co-location logic there. May be Blur is looking
to solve different requirements with HDFS etc...?
> Support for humongous Rows
> --------------------------
>
> Key: BLUR-220
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BLUR-220
> Project: Apache Blur
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Blur
> Affects Versions: 0.3.0
> Reporter: Aaron McCurry
> Fix For: 0.3.0
>
> Attachments: Blur_Query_Perf_Chart1.pdf, CreateIndex.java,
> CreateIndex.java, CreateSortedIndex.java, MyEarlyTerminatingCollector.java,
> test_results.txt, TestSearch.java, TestSearch.java
>
>
> One of the limitations of Blur is size of Rows stored, specifically the
> number of Records. The current updates are performed on Lucene is by
> deleting the document and re-adding to the index. Unfortunately when any
> update is perform on a Row in Blur, the entire Row has to be re-read (if the
> RowMutationType is UPDATE_ROW) and then whatever modification needs are made
> then it is reindexed in it's entirety.
> Due to all of this overhead, there is a realistic limit on the size of a
> given Row. It may vary based the kind of hardware that is being used, as the
> Row grows in size the indexing (mutations) against that Row will slow.
> This issue is being created to discuss techniques on how to deal with this
> problem.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.1#6144)
