[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-4412?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15365943#comment-15365943
]
Chetan Mehrotra commented on OAK-4412:
--------------------------------------
[~tomek.rekawek] I have yet not been able to take closer look and would need
some time to review it better.
In between it would be helpful if we can get some numbers around how this
approach is performing. That would ensure that all the theory and extra
complexity is worth it!
> Lucene hybrid index
> -------------------
>
> Key: OAK-4412
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-4412
> Project: Jackrabbit Oak
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: lucene
> Reporter: Tomek Rękawek
> Assignee: Tomek Rękawek
> Fix For: 1.6
>
> Attachments: OAK-4412.patch
>
>
> When running Oak in a cluster, each write operation is expensive. After
> performing some stress-tests with a geo-distributed Mongo cluster, we've
> found out that updating property indexes is a large part of the overall
> traffic.
> The asynchronous index would be an answer here (as the index update won't be
> made in the client request thread), but the AEM requires the updates to be
> visible immediately in order to work properly.
> The idea here is to enhance the existing asynchronous Lucene index with a
> synchronous, locally-stored counterpart that will persist only the data since
> the last Lucene background reindexing job.
> The new index can be stored in memory or (if necessary) in MMAPed local
> files. Once the "main" Lucene index is being updated, the local index will be
> purged.
> Queries will use an union of results from the {{lucene}} and
> {{lucene-memory}} indexes.
> The {{lucene-memory}} index, as a local stored entity, will be updated using
> an observer, so it'll get both local and remote changes.
> The original idea has been suggested by [~chetanm] in the discussion for the
> OAK-4233.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
