[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-7976?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16212949#comment-16212949
 ] 

Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-7976:
--------------------------------------------

I don't think we can allow different max segment sizes for forced merges and 
natural merges; that's effectively the state we are in today and it causes the 
bug (case 1) we have here, because natural merging can't touch the too-big 
segments.  I think we need to fix {{forceMerge}}, and 
{{findForcedDeletesMerges}}, to respect the maximum segment size, and if you 
really want a single segment and your index is bigger than 5 GB (default max 
segment size), you need to increase that maximum.  This would solve case 1 (the 
"I ran {{forceMerge}} and yet continued updating my index" situation).

For case 2, if we also must solve the "even 50% deletions is too much for me" 
case (and I'm not yet sure we should... Lucene is quite good at skipping 
deleted docs during search), maybe we could simply relax TMP so that even max 
sized segments that have < 50% deletions are eligible for merging.  Then, they 
would be considered for natural merging right off, and users could always 
(carefully!) tune up the {{reclaimDeletesWeight}} to more aggressively target 
segments with deletions.

> 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