[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-9379?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17151915#comment-17151915
]
Bruno Roustant commented on LUCENE-9379:
----------------------------------------
I ran the benchmarks to measure the perf impact of this IndexInput-level
encryption on the PostingsFormat (luceneutil on wikimediumall).
When encrypting only the terms file, FST file and metadata file (.tim .tip
.tmd) (not doc id nor postings):
Most queries run between -0% to -35%
Wildcard -47%
Fuzzy/Respell between -60% to -74%
It is possible to encrypt all files, but the perf drops considerably, -60% for
most queries, -90% for fuzzy queries.
> Directory based approach for index encryption
> ---------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-9379
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-9379
> Project: Lucene - Core
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Reporter: Bruno Roustant
> Assignee: Bruno Roustant
> Priority: Major
> Time Spent: 2h 20m
> Remaining Estimate: 0h
>
> The goal is to provide optional encryption of the index, with a scope limited
> to an encryptable Lucene Directory wrapper.
> Encryption is at rest on disk, not in memory.
> This simple approach should fit any Codec as it would be orthogonal, without
> modifying APIs as much as possible.
> Use a standard encryption method. Limit perf/memory impact as much as
> possible.
> Determine how callers provide encryption keys. They must not be stored on
> disk.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: issues-h...@lucene.apache.org
