Hi, thanks for the explanations. Though I had no luck...
I now do the close of the reader before the commit. But still, only the
close get us back to nominal. Here is the complete test:
@Test
public void optimize() throws Exception {
final File dir = new File("lucene_work/optimize");
dir.mkdirs();
for (File f : dir.listFiles()) {
f.delete();
}
Assert.assertEquals(0, dir.listFiles().length);
Analyzer analyzer = new StandardAnalyzer(Version.LUCENE_CURRENT);
MaxFieldLength maxLength = IndexWriter.MaxFieldLength.UNLIMITED;
IndexWriter writer = new IndexWriter(FSDirectory.open(dir),
analyzer, true, maxLength);
monitorIndexSize(dir);
long time = 2000;
log.info("writing...");
for (int i = 0; i < 1000000; i++) {
Document doc = new Document();
doc.add(new Field("foo", "bar " + i, Store.YES,
Index.NOT_ANALYZED));
writer.addDocument(doc);
}
writer.commit();
log.info("done write");
Thread.sleep(time);
log.info("opening reader...");
IndexReader reader = writer.getReader();
log.info("done open reader");
Thread.sleep(time);
log.info("optimizing...");
writer.optimize();
log.info("done optimize");
Thread.sleep(time);
log.info("closing reader...");
reader.close();
log.info("done reader close");
Thread.sleep(time);
log.info("committing...");
writer.commit();
log.info("done commit");
Thread.sleep(time);
log.info("closing writer...");
writer.close();
log.info("done writer close");
Thread.sleep(time);
}
And an exec log:
15:58:46,875 INFO logserver.LuceneSystemTest writing...
15:58:46,875 INFO logserver.LuceneSystemTest size=0Mb
15:58:47,891 INFO logserver.LuceneSystemTest size=1Mb
15:58:48,891 INFO logserver.LuceneSystemTest size=3Mb
15:58:49,891 INFO logserver.LuceneSystemTest size=5Mb
15:58:50,906 INFO logserver.LuceneSystemTest size=8Mb
15:58:51,906 INFO logserver.LuceneSystemTest size=9Mb
15:58:52,906 INFO logserver.LuceneSystemTest size=12Mb
15:58:53,922 INFO logserver.LuceneSystemTest size=14Mb
15:58:54,984 INFO logserver.LuceneSystemTest size=15Mb
15:58:55,984 INFO logserver.LuceneSystemTest size=18Mb
15:58:56,984 INFO logserver.LuceneSystemTest size=20Mb
15:58:58,000 INFO logserver.LuceneSystemTest size=21Mb
15:58:59,000 INFO logserver.LuceneSystemTest size=25Mb
15:59:00,016 INFO logserver.LuceneSystemTest size=27Mb
15:59:01,016 INFO logserver.LuceneSystemTest size=29Mb
15:59:02,016 INFO logserver.LuceneSystemTest size=52Mb
15:59:03,031 INFO logserver.LuceneSystemTest size=52Mb
15:59:04,031 INFO logserver.LuceneSystemTest size=32Mb
15:59:04,328 INFO logserver.LuceneSystemTest done write
15:59:05,031 INFO logserver.LuceneSystemTest size=32Mb
15:59:06,031 INFO logserver.LuceneSystemTest size=32Mb
15:59:06,328 INFO logserver.LuceneSystemTest opening reader...
15:59:06,453 INFO logserver.LuceneSystemTest done open reader
15:59:07,031 INFO logserver.LuceneSystemTest size=32Mb
15:59:08,031 INFO logserver.LuceneSystemTest size=32Mb
15:59:08,453 INFO logserver.LuceneSystemTest optimizing...
15:59:09,047 INFO logserver.LuceneSystemTest size=34Mb
15:59:10,047 INFO logserver.LuceneSystemTest size=37Mb
15:59:11,047 INFO logserver.LuceneSystemTest size=40Mb
15:59:12,047 INFO logserver.LuceneSystemTest size=42Mb
15:59:12,391 INFO logserver.LuceneSystemTest done optimize
15:59:13,062 INFO logserver.LuceneSystemTest size=55Mb
15:59:14,062 INFO logserver.LuceneSystemTest size=55Mb
15:59:14,391 INFO logserver.LuceneSystemTest closing reader...
15:59:14,406 INFO logserver.LuceneSystemTest done reader close
15:59:15,062 INFO logserver.LuceneSystemTest size=55Mb
15:59:16,062 INFO logserver.LuceneSystemTest size=55Mb
15:59:16,406 INFO logserver.LuceneSystemTest committing...
15:59:16,469 INFO logserver.LuceneSystemTest done commit
15:59:17,062 INFO logserver.LuceneSystemTest size=43Mb
15:59:18,062 INFO logserver.LuceneSystemTest size=43Mb
15:59:18,469 INFO logserver.LuceneSystemTest closing writer...
15:59:18,484 INFO logserver.LuceneSystemTest done writer close
15:59:19,062 INFO logserver.LuceneSystemTest size=32Mb
15:59:20,078 INFO logserver.LuceneSystemTest size=32Mb
I guess I would be able to do a close and reopen if really I need to. But if
there is a nicer and more natural solution, I would love to know about it.
thanks,
vincent
Michael McCandless-2 wrote:
>
> Phew, thanks for testing! It's all explainable...
>
> When you have a reader open, it prevents the segments it had opened
> from being deleted.
>
> When you close that reader, the segments could be deleted, however,
> that won't happen until the writer next tries to delete, which it does
> only periodically (eg, on flushing a new segment, committing a new
> merge, etc.).
>
> Could you try closing your reader, then calling writer.commit() (which
> is a no-op, since you had already committed, but it may tickle the
> writer into attempting the deletions), and see if that frees up disk
> space w/o closing?
>
> Mike
>
> On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 4:12 PM, vsevel <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I am starting my tests with an unoptimized 40Mb index. I have 3 test
>> cases:
>> 1) open a writer, optimize, commit, close
>> 2) open a writer, open a reader from the writer, optimize, commit, close
>> 3) same as 2) except the reader is opened while the optimize is done in a
>> different thread
>>
>> During all the tests, I monitor the size of the index on the disk. The
>> results are:
>> 1) initial=41Mb, before end of optimize=122Mb, after end of
>> optimize=81Mb,
>> after commit=40Mb, after writer close=40Mb
>> 2) initial=41Mb, before end of optimize=122Mb, after end of
>> optimize=104Mb,
>> after commit=104Mb, after reader close=104Mb, after writer close=40Mb
>> 3) initial=41Mb, before end of optimize=145Mb, after end of
>> optimize=127Mb,
>> after commit=103Mb, after reader close=103Mb, after writer close=40Mb
>>
>> From your different posts I assumed that a commit would have the same
>> effect
>> as a close as far as reclaiming disk space is concerned. however test
>> cases
>> 2 and 3 show that whether the reader is opened before or during the
>> optimize
>> we end up after commit with an index that is 2.5 times the nominal size.
>> closing the reader does not change anything. only a close can get us the
>> index back to nominal.
>>
>> What is the reason why the commit nor closing the reader can get us back
>> to
>> nominal?
>> Do you recommend closing and recreating a new writer after an optimize?
>>
>> thanks
>> vincent
>>
>>
>> Michael McCandless-2 wrote:
>>>
>>> OK, I'll add that to the javadocs; thanks.
>>>
>>> But the fact that you weren't closing the old readers was probably
>>> also tying up lots of disk space...
>>>
>>> Mike
>>>
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>> http://old.nabble.com/Searching-while-optimizing-tp26485138p26545384.html
>> Sent from the Lucene - Java Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>
>
>
--
View this message in context:
http://old.nabble.com/Searching-while-optimizing-tp26485138p26556468.html
Sent from the Lucene - Java Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
