Let's wait for this functionality and see what happens. If the gain is significant then this provides an incentive to upgrade for everyone. MR-JARs will be a pain to keep consistent...
Dawid On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 10:19 AM Adrien Grand <[email protected]> wrote: > I think we should discuss options when Project Panama is released. Doing > frequent major releases forces users to reindex more often. If Project > Panama was released shortly and we decided to release Lucene 10 > immediately, this would force users to reindex their 8.x data to be able to > upgrade, I know of many Elasticsearch users for whom it would cause > headaches and I suspect that it's no different for Solr users and many > direct users of Lucene. I'd rather look into publishing a MR JAR of bumping > the minimum required Java version in a minor release than releasing Lucene > 10.0 less than 1 year after 9.0. > > On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 9:19 PM Uwe Schindler <[email protected]> wrote: > >> In addition: we test for compatibility with Java 17 (both Lucene and >> Solr), so consumer is still able to use any version and has enough >> flexibility. >> >> Uwe >> >> Am 13. September 2021 18:52:53 UTC schrieb Dawid Weiss < >> [email protected]>: >>> >>> >>> I agree with Uwe and Robert. JDK11, then the min bar should move if >>> there is something that brings value (be it performance, LTS or some other >>> attractive option). >>> >>> Dawid >>> >>> On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 8:15 PM Robert Muir <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> +1, I think the main thing to watch out for is project panama. If we >>>> get a 18.x/19.x release with non-incubating APIs, I think it makes >>>> sense to create a new major Lucene version. Even if it isn't an >>>> OpenJDK LTS release. It could really change a lot, especially >>>> regarding hotspots in the code such as postings/dv compression. So it >>>> would be great to allow a lot of folks to make a "take two" on these >>>> algorithms with vectorization in mind. This is just my opinion. >>>> >>>> On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 2:10 PM Uwe Schindler <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> > >>>> > There are no good reasons to do Java 17 and it is way too early. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > Reagrding real optimizations, Lucene 17 is unfortunately not >>>> containing Project Panama or Vector API, so it looks more like Java 18/19 >>>> is a good candidate as a new minimum at a later stage. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > I’d release Lucene 9 with Java 11 (which is LTS) and then decide >>>> later if we update to some post-17 version to get the new vector and panama >>>> APIs (vector search, SIMD and also MMapDirectory v2). If we do this, we >>>> should simply release Lucene 10. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > Uwe >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > ----- >>>> > >>>> > Uwe Schindler >>>> > >>>> > Achterdiek 19, D-28357 Bremen >>>> > >>>> > https://www.thetaphi.de >>>> > >>>> > eMail: [email protected] >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > From: Mike Drob <[email protected]> >>>> > Sent: Monday, September 13, 2021 8:00 PM >>>> > To: Solr/Lucene Dev <[email protected]> >>>> > Subject: Java 11/17 Version Matrix >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > Hi Devs, >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > What are our thoughts on Java 11 and 17 version compatibility going >>>> forward for Lucene 9? Will we support both? If so, would Java 11 support >>>> likely continue for the entire 9.x release line? >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > Is there a JIRA tracking this? >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > Thanks, >>>> > >>>> > Mike >>>> >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >>>> >>>> -- >> Uwe Schindler >> Achterdiek 19, 28357 Bremen >> https://www.thetaphi.de >> > > > -- > Adrien >
