Andrey, I’ve already wiped the old off-heap memory out of my mind. Sure I assumed the off-heap space managed by the new memory architecture.
— Denis > On Aug 1, 2017, at 11:14 AM, Andrey Mashenkov <andrey.mashen...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Denis, > > Lucene fullText index stores off-heap in old way, not in page memory. > Therefore it is not persistent. > > There is a second issue related to FullText index as it is different kind > of index and it has own query type and it can't be use in SQL queries. > Looks like it make sense to integrate FullText indices in our SQL layer as > well. > > AFAIK, H2 has some support of FullText indices based on Lucene, so we can > get a hint how we can integrate it. > > > > On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 8:09 PM, Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org> wrote: > >> Vladimir, >> >> We need to consider that these two types of indexes are not stored >> off-heap either. >> >> It expands the task a bit — the indexes have to be fully integrated with >> the new durable memory architecture supporting both off-heap and >> persistence layers. >> >> — >> Denis >> >>> On Aug 1, 2017, at 3:26 AM, Vladimir Ozerov <voze...@gridgain.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> Guys, >>> >>> AFAIK these two index types are not supported with enabled persistence at >>> the moment, neither they stored on the disk anyhow. Can someone help with >>> estimates on how difficult would it be to implement these indexes over >>> page-memory architecture? >>> >>> Looks like we will have to write our own implementation of these indexes, >>> instead of relying on Lucene and H2. Am I right? >>> >>> Vladimir. >> >> > > > -- > Best regards, > Andrey V. Mashenkov
