[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2324?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12851078#action_12851078
]
Michael Busch commented on LUCENE-2324:
---------------------------------------
{quote}
I'm not sure we need that level of complexity just yet? How
would we make the transaction log memory efficient?
{quote}
Is that really so complex? You only need one additional int per doc in the
DWPTs, and the global map for the delete terms. You don't need to buffer the
actual terms per DWPT. I thought that's quite efficient? But I'm totally open
to other ideas.
I can try tonight to code a prototype of this - I don't think it would be very
complex actually. But of course there might be complications I haven't thought
of.
bq. Are there other uses you foresee?
Not really for the "transaction log" as you called it. I'd remove that log
once we switch to deletes in the FG (when the RAM buffer is searchable). But a
nice thing would be for add/update/delete to return the seqID, and also the if
RAMReader in the future had an API to check up to which seqID it's able to
"see". Then it's very clear to user of the API where a given reader is at.
For this to work we have to assign the seqID at the *end* of a call. E.g. when
adding a large document, which takes a long time to process, it should get the
seqID assigned after the "work" is done and right before the addDocument() call
returns.
> Per thread DocumentsWriters that write their own private segments
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-2324
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2324
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Index
> Reporter: Michael Busch
> Assignee: Michael Busch
> Priority: Minor
> Fix For: 3.1
>
> Attachments: LUCENE-2324.patch
>
>
> See LUCENE-2293 for motivation and more details.
> I'm copying here Mike's summary he posted on 2293:
> Change the approach for how we buffer in RAM to a more isolated
> approach, whereby IW has N fully independent RAM segments
> in-process and when a doc needs to be indexed it's added to one of
> them. Each segment would also write its own doc stores and
> "normal" segment merging (not the inefficient merge we now do on
> flush) would merge them. This should be a good simplification in
> the chain (eg maybe we can remove the *PerThread classes). The
> segments can flush independently, letting us make much better
> concurrent use of IO & CPU.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
