[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2680?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Jason Rutherglen updated LUCENE-2680:
-------------------------------------
Attachment: LUCENE-2680.patch
Here's a nice little checkpoint with more tests passing.
* A last known segment is recorded, which is the last segment seen when
adding a delete term/query per segment. This is for a applyDeletesAll
check to ensure a given query/term has not already been applied to a
segment. If a term/query exists in the per-segment deletes and is in
deletesFlushed, we delete, unless we're beyond the last known segment, at
which point we simply delete (adhering of course to the docid-upto).
* In the interest of accuracy I nixed lastSegmentIndex in favor of
lastSegmentInfo which is easier for debugging and implementation when
segments are shuffled around and/or removed/added. There's not too much of
a penalty in terms of performance.
* org.apache.lucene.index tests pass
* I need to address the applying deletes only on readers within the
docid-upto per term/query, perhaps that's best left to a different Jira
issue.
* Still not committable as it needs cleaning up, complete unit tests, who
knows what else.
> Improve how IndexWriter flushes deletes against existing segments
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-2680
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2680
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Michael McCandless
> Fix For: 4.0
>
> Attachments: LUCENE-2680.patch, LUCENE-2680.patch, LUCENE-2680.patch,
> LUCENE-2680.patch
>
>
> IndexWriter buffers up all deletes (by Term and Query) and only
> applies them if 1) commit or NRT getReader() is called, or 2) a merge
> is about to kickoff.
> We do this because, for a large index, it's very costly to open a
> SegmentReader for every segment in the index. So we defer as long as
> we can. We do it just before merge so that the merge can eliminate
> the deleted docs.
> But, most merges are small, yet in a big index we apply deletes to all
> of the segments, which is really very wasteful.
> Instead, we should only apply the buffered deletes to the segments
> that are about to be merged, and keep the buffer around for the
> remaining segments.
> I think it's not so hard to do; we'd have to have generations of
> pending deletions, because the newly merged segment doesn't need the
> same buffered deletions applied again. So every time a merge kicks
> off, we pinch off the current set of buffered deletions, open a new
> set (the next generation), and record which segment was created as of
> which generation.
> This should be a very sizable gain for large indices that mix
> deletes, though, less so in flex since opening the terms index is much
> faster.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
