[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-10255?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15906431#comment-15906431
 ] 

David Smiley commented on SOLR-10255:
-------------------------------------

I think I want to scale back the scope of what I plan to do in the short term 
(for 6.5), while still allowing a BinaryDocValuesField (with compressed 
codec/format) in the future.

I'll file a separate issue for this and try and throw up a patch Monday:  The 
field can remain stored but go _last_ (and the DocumentBuilder can ensure this 
happens).  The last stored value will _not_ be read from disk (well first 16KB 
but whatever) due to LUCENE-6898.  On the {{SolrIndexSearcher.doc(...)}} side, 
the "lazy" fields will get a LargeAlwaysDiskLazyField but one that goes to 
stored value not BinaryDocValues.

> Large psuedo-stored fields via BinaryDocValuesField
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: SOLR-10255
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-10255
>             Project: Solr
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>      Security Level: Public(Default Security Level. Issues are Public) 
>            Reporter: David Smiley
>            Assignee: David Smiley
>         Attachments: SOLR-10255.patch, SOLR-10255.patch
>
>
> (sub-issue of SOLR-10117)  This is a proposal for a better way for Solr to 
> handle "large" text fields.  Large docs that are in Lucene StoredFields slow 
> requests that don't involve access to such fields.  This is fundamental to 
> the fact that StoredFields are row-stored.  Worse, the Solr documentCache 
> will wind up holding onto massive Strings.  While the latter could be tackled 
> on it's own somehow as it's the most serious issue, nevertheless it seems 
> wrong that such large fields are in row-stored storage to begin with.  After 
> all, relational DBs seemed to have figured this out and put CLOBs/BLOBs in a 
> separate place.  Here, we do similarly by using, Lucene 
> {{BinaryDocValuesField}}.  BDVF isn't well known in the DocValues family as 
> it's not for typical DocValues purposes like sorting/faceting etc.  The 
> default DocValuesFormat doesn't compress these but we could write one that 
> does.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.15#6346)

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

Reply via email to