I think it's supposed to work pretty good - though I have no personal experience with merging branches with svn.

I think we should try it - then we'll know! :)

 Michael

On 10/12/09 12:32 PM, Michael McCandless (JIRA) wrote:
     [ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12764799#action_12764799
 ]

Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-1458:
--------------------------------------------

bq. Shall we create a flexible-indexing branch and commit this?

I think this is a good idea.

But I haven't played heavily w/ svn&  branching.  EG if we branch now, and 
trunk moves fast (which it still is w/ deprecation removals), are we going to have 
conflicts?  Or... is svn good about merging branches?

Further steps towards flexible indexing
---------------------------------------

                 Key: LUCENE-1458
                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458
             Project: Lucene - Java
          Issue Type: New Feature
          Components: Index
    Affects Versions: 2.9
            Reporter: Michael McCandless
            Assignee: Michael McCandless
            Priority: Minor
         Attachments: LUCENE-1458-back-compat.patch, 
LUCENE-1458-back-compat.patch, LUCENE-1458-back-compat.patch, 
LUCENE-1458-back-compat.patch, LUCENE-1458-back-compat.patch, 
LUCENE-1458-back-compat.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch, 
LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch, 
LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch, 
LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.tar.bz2, LUCENE-1458.tar.bz2, 
LUCENE-1458.tar.bz2, LUCENE-1458.tar.bz2, LUCENE-1458.tar.bz2, 
LUCENE-1458.tar.bz2, LUCENE-1458.tar.bz2


I attached a very rough checkpoint of my current patch, to get early
feedback.  All tests pass, though back compat tests don't pass due to
changes to package-private APIs plus certain bugs in tests that
happened to work (eg call TermPostions.nextPosition() too many times,
which the new API asserts against).
[Aside: I think, when we commit changes to package-private APIs such
that back-compat tests don't pass, we could go back, make a branch on
the back-compat tag, commit changes to the tests to use the new
package private APIs on that branch, then fix nightly build to use the
tip of that branch?o]
There's still plenty to do before this is committable! This is a
rather large change:
   * Switches to a new more efficient terms dict format.  This still
     uses tii/tis files, but the tii only stores term&  long offset
     (not a TermInfo).  At seek points, tis encodes term&  freq/prox
     offsets absolutely instead of with deltas delta.  Also, tis/tii
     are structured by field, so we don't have to record field number
     in every term.
.
     On first 1 M docs of Wikipedia, tii file is 36% smaller (0.99 MB
     ->  0.64 MB) and tis file is 9% smaller (75.5 MB ->  68.5 MB).
.
     RAM usage when loading terms dict index is significantly less
     since we only load an array of offsets and an array of String (no
     more TermInfo array).  It should be faster to init too.
.
     This part is basically done.
   * Introduces modular reader codec that strongly decouples terms dict
     from docs/positions readers.  EG there is no more TermInfo used
     when reading the new format.
.
     There's nice symmetry now between reading&  writing in the codec
     chain -- the current docs/prox format is captured in:
{code}
FormatPostingsTermsDictWriter/Reader
FormatPostingsDocsWriter/Reader (.frq file) and
FormatPostingsPositionsWriter/Reader (.prx file).
{code}
     This part is basically done.
   * Introduces a new "flex" API for iterating through the fields,
     terms, docs and positions:
{code}
FieldProducer ->  TermsEnum ->  DocsEnum ->  PostingsEnum
{code}
     This replaces TermEnum/Docs/Positions.  SegmentReader emulates the
     old API on top of the new API to keep back-compat.

Next steps:
   * Plug in new codecs (pulsing, pfor) to exercise the modularity /
     fix any hidden assumptions.
   * Expose new API out of IndexReader, deprecate old API but emulate
     old API on top of new one, switch all core/contrib users to the
     new API.
   * Maybe switch to AttributeSources as the base class for TermsEnum,
     DocsEnum, PostingsEnum -- this would give readers API flexibility
     (not just index-file-format flexibility).  EG if someone wanted
     to store payload at the term-doc level instead of
     term-doc-position level, you could just add a new attribute.
   * Test performance&  iterate.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org

Reply via email to