[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-7020?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
 ]

Shawn Heisey updated LUCENE-7020:
---------------------------------
    Attachment: LUCENE-7020.patch

Attaching patch implementing the automatic setting of maxMergeAtOnceExplicit to 
three times the value used in the setMaxMergeAtOnce method.

> TieredMergePolicy - cascade maxMergeAtOnce setting to maxMergeAtOnceExplicit
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: LUCENE-7020
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-7020
>             Project: Lucene - Core
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>    Affects Versions: 5.4.1
>            Reporter: Shawn Heisey
>            Assignee: Shawn Heisey
>         Attachments: LUCENE-7020.patch
>
>
> SOLR-8621 covers improvements in configuring a merge policy in Solr.
> Discussions on that issue brought up the fact that if large values are 
> configured for maxMergeAtOnce and segmentsPerTier, but maxMergeAtOnceExplicit 
> is not changed, then doing a forceMerge is likely to not work as expected.
> When I first configured maxMergeAtOnce and segmentsPerTier to 35 in Solr, I 
> saw an optimize (forceMerge) fully rewrite most of the index *twice* in order 
> to achieve a single segment, because there were approximately 80 segments in 
> the index before the optimize, and maxMergeAtOnceExplicit defaults to 30.  On 
> advice given via the solr-user mailing list, I configured 
> maxMergeAtOnceExplicit to 105 and have not had that problem since.
> I propose that setting maxMergeAtOnce should also set maxMergeAtOnceExplicit 
> to three times the new value -- unless the setMaxMergeAtOnceExplicit method 
> has been invoked, indicating that the user wishes to set that value 
> themselves.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]

Reply via email to