[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-7976?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16189953#comment-16189953
 ] 

Erick Erickson commented on LUCENE-7976:
----------------------------------------

-1 to making the index read-only. It's just too easy to get in that trap and be 
stuck forever. Maybe a really-strongly worded warning in the docs and the Solr 
admin UI?

-1 for taking the option away. I see far too many situations where users index 
rarely, say once a day and _want_ to optimize to squeeze every last bit of 
performance they can. And maybe take the option _out_ Solr's admin UI, but 
that's a separate issue.

I think one of the critical bits is to rewrite segments that are > X% deleted, 
no matter how big. At least that gives people a way to recover, albeit 
painfully. Whatever solution needs to do that I think.

As for whether X% is per segment or index-wide I don't have any strong 
preferences. Enforcing that on a per-segment basis would automatically make it 
true for the entire index, but doing it index-wide would allow for less 
rewrites, let's say you have one segment, particularly a small one with 50% 
deleted docs that make up 1% of the whole index. There's not much need to 
rewrite it.....

> Add a parameter to TieredMergePolicy to merge segments that have more than X 
> percent deleted documents
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: LUCENE-7976
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-7976
>             Project: Lucene - Core
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>            Reporter: Erick Erickson
>
> We're seeing situations "in the wild" where there are very large indexes (on 
> disk) handled quite easily in a single Lucene index. This is particularly 
> true as features like docValues move data into MMapDirectory space. The 
> current TMP algorithm allows on the order of 50% deleted documents as per a 
> dev list conversation with Mike McCandless (and his blog here:  
> https://www.elastic.co/blog/lucenes-handling-of-deleted-documents).
> Especially in the current era of very large indexes in aggregate, (think many 
> TB) solutions like "you need to distribute your collection over more shards" 
> become very costly. Additionally, the tempting "optimize" button exacerbates 
> the issue since once you form, say, a 100G segment (by 
> optimizing/forceMerging) it is not eligible for merging until 97.5G of the 
> docs in it are deleted (current default 5G max segment size).
> The proposal here would be to add a new parameter to TMP, something like 
> <maxAllowedPctDeletedInBigSegments> (no, that's not serious name, suggestions 
> welcome) which would default to 100 (or the same behavior we have now).
> So if I set this parameter to, say, 20%, and the max segment size stays at 
> 5G, the following would happen when segments were selected for merging:
> > any segment with > 20% deleted documents would be merged or rewritten NO 
> > MATTER HOW LARGE. There are two cases,
> >> the segment has < 5G "live" docs. In that case it would be merged with 
> >> smaller segments to bring the resulting segment up to 5G. If no smaller 
> >> segments exist, it would just be rewritten
> >> The segment has > 5G "live" docs (the result of a forceMerge or optimize). 
> >> It would be rewritten into a single segment removing all deleted docs no 
> >> matter how big it is to start. The 100G example above would be rewritten 
> >> to an 80G segment for instance.
> Of course this would lead to potentially much more I/O which is why the 
> default would be the same behavior we see now. As it stands now, though, 
> there's no way to recover from an optimize/forceMerge except to re-index from 
> scratch. We routinely see 200G-300G Lucene indexes at this point "in the 
> wild" with 10s of  shards replicated 3 or more times. And that doesn't even 
> include having these over HDFS.
> Alternatives welcome! Something like the above seems minimally invasive. A 
> new merge policy is certainly an alternative.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.4.14#64029)

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

Reply via email to