[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-8688?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16784295#comment-16784295
]
Adrien Grand commented on LUCENE-8688:
--------------------------------------
bq. Unfortunately I wasn't quite able to find the new utility methods to
simulate an ongoing merge, could you point me at what method(s) you had in mind?
See {{MockMergeContext}}, {{makeSegmentCommitInfo}} and {{applyMerge}} in
{{BaseMergePolicyTestCase}}. We will need to have another mock {{MergeContext}}
or extend the current one to be able to pass a set of in-progress merges.
The merging logic looks better to me now. I'll have a deeper look when you
upload the next patch.
> Forced merges merge more than necessary
> ---------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-8688
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-8688
> Project: Lucene - Core
> Issue Type: Bug
> Reporter: Adrien Grand
> Priority: Minor
> Attachments: LUCENE-8688.patch, LUCENE-8688.patch
>
>
> A user reported some surprise after the upgrade to Lucene 7.5 due to changes
> to how forced merges are selected when maxSegmentCount is greater than 1.
> Before 7.5 forceMerge used to pick up the least amount of merging that would
> result in an index that has maxSegmentCount segments at most. Now that we
> share the same logic as regular merges, we are almost sure to pick a
> maxMergeAtOnceExplicit-segments merge (30 segments) given that merges that
> have more segments usually score better. This is due to the fact that natural
> merges assume that merges that run now save work for later, so the more
> segments get merged, the better. This assumption doesn't hold for forced
> merges that should run on read-only indices, so there won't be any future
> merging.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
