Re: Subject: New branch and feature freeze for Lucene 9.4.0

Looks like a fair deal. I will check daily for the release to appear. Once all looks fine I will update the PR and change away from draft status. Uwe Am 21.09.2022 um 20:44 schrieb Michael Sokolov: OK, how does this sound: if there is a (JDK19 AdoptOpenJDK) release this week as it seems there

Re: Subject: New branch and feature freeze for Lucene 9.4.0

OK, how does this sound: if there is a (JDK19 AdoptOpenJDK) release this week as it seems there should be, and you are able to fast-follow with the Lucene changes to use it then I can re-spin RC2 on Monday or Tuesday. On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 1:35 PM Uwe Schindler wrote: > > FYI, here

Re: Subject: New branch and feature freeze for Lucene 9.4.0

FYI, here (https://github.com/adoptium/adoptium/issues/171) Eclipse says: * Add website banner (automate* via github workflow in website repository) - Announce that we target releases to be available within 48-72 hours of the GA tags being available Uwe Am 21.09.2022 um 14:31 schrieb Uwe

Re: Subject: New branch and feature freeze for Lucene 9.4.0

Hi, I will check later today how long it took last time in March. I would have expected that they just need to wait until the builds and tests are done so it gets released. I don't want to hold up the release. The vote is still ongoning, so we have all options. Uwe Am 21.09.2022 um 14:05

Re: Subject: New branch and feature freeze for Lucene 9.4.0

I see; I would kind of like to get the release out before ApacheCon NA, which starts Oct 3. Do you think it's likely AdoptOpenJDK will release its JDK19 in the next week (say by Sep 26)? On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 4:32 AM Uwe Schindler wrote: > > Hi, > > JDK 19 was released yesterday and I am still

Re: Subject: New branch and feature freeze for Lucene 9.4.0

Hi, JDK 19 was released yesterday and I am still waiting for AdoptOpenJDK to publish Gradle Toolchain compatible releases to be available. To me the schedule is a bit bad: Just on the day of the possibility to add (optional) support for JDK 19 Panama powered MMAP, we started the release. I

Re: Subject: New branch and feature freeze for Lucene 9.4.0

Both changes are on branch_9_4 now. On Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 1:31 PM Michael Sokolov wrote: > well, I did start, optimistically, but I think I need to re-spin to > include a fix for this test failure that has been popping up, so I will > pull these in too. > > On Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 6:24 AM

Re: Subject: New branch and feature freeze for Lucene 9.4.0

well, I did start, optimistically, but I think I need to re-spin to include a fix for this test failure that has been popping up, so I will pull these in too. On Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 6:24 AM Adrien Grand wrote: > Hi Mike, > > If you have not started a RC yet, I'd like to include some small

Re: Subject: New branch and feature freeze for Lucene 9.4.0

Hi Mike, If you have not started a RC yet, I'd like to include some small fixes for bugs that were recently introduced in Lucene: - https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/11792 - https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/11794 On Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 1:26 AM Julie Tibshirani wrote: > Sorry for

Re: Subject: New branch and feature freeze for Lucene 9.4.0

Sorry for the confusion. To explain, I use a local ann-benchmarks set-up that makes use of KnnGraphTester. It is a bit hacky and I accidentally included the warm-ups in the final timings. So the change to warm-up explains why we saw different results in our tests. This is great motivation to

Re: Subject: New branch and feature freeze for Lucene 9.4.0

I'm confused, since warming should not be counted in the timings. Are you saying that the recall was affected?? On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 6:12 PM Julie Tibshirani wrote: > Using the ann-benchmarks framework, I still saw a similar regression as > Mayya between 9.3 and 9.4. I investigated and found

Re: Subject: New branch and feature freeze for Lucene 9.4.0

Using the ann-benchmarks framework, I still saw a similar regression as Mayya between 9.3 and 9.4. I investigated and found it was due to "KnnGraphTester to use KnnVectorQuery" ( https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/796), specifically the change to the warm-up strategy. If I revert it, the

Re: Subject: New branch and feature freeze for Lucene 9.4.0

Thanks for your speedy testing! I am observing comparable latencies *when the index geometry (ie number of segments)* is unchanged. Agree we can leave this for a later day. I'll proceed to cut 9.4 artifacts On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 11:02 AM Mayya Sharipova wrote: > It would be great if you all

Re: Subject: New branch and feature freeze for Lucene 9.4.0

> > It would be great if you all are able to test again with > https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/11781/ applied I ran the ann benchmarks with this change, and was happy to confirm that in my test recall with this PR is the same as in 9.3 branch, although QPS is lower, but we can

Re: Subject: New branch and feature freeze for Lucene 9.4.0

OK, I think I was wrong about latency having increased due to a change in KnnGraphTester -- I did some testing there and couldn't reproduce. There does seem to be a slight vector search latency increase, possibly noise, but maybe due to the branching introduced to check whether to do byte vs float

Re: Subject: New branch and feature freeze for Lucene 9.4.0

Thanks for the deep-dive Julie. I was able to reproduce the changing recall. I had introduced some bugs in the diversity checks (that may have partially canceled each other out? it's hard to understand what was happening in the buggy case) and posted a fix today

Re: Subject: New branch and feature freeze for Lucene 9.4.0

Thank you Mike, I just backported the change. On Thu, Sep 15, 2022 at 6:32 PM Michael Sokolov wrote: > it looks like a small bug fix, we have had on main (and 9.x?) for a > while now and no test failures showed up, I guess. Should be OK to > port. I plan to cut artifacts this weekend, or Monday

Re: Subject: New branch and feature freeze for Lucene 9.4.0

Hello! I also ran some local vector search benchmarks on branch_9_4. I found that given the same parameters, there is a significant change in recall/ QPS before and after the initial "enable quantization to 8-bit" backport (https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/1054). Here's an example with M=16,

Re: Subject: New branch and feature freeze for Lucene 9.4.0

it looks like a small bug fix, we have had on main (and 9.x?) for a while now and no test failures showed up, I guess. Should be OK to port. I plan to cut artifacts this weekend, or Monday at the latest, but if you can do the backport today or tomorrow, that's fine by me. On Thu, Sep 15, 2022 at

Re: Subject: New branch and feature freeze for Lucene 9.4.0

Mike, I'm tempted to backport https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/1068 to branch_9_4, which is a bugfix that looks pretty safe to me. What do you think? On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 4:11 PM Mayya Sharipova wrote: > Thanks for running more tests, Michael. > It is encouraging that you saw a similar

Re: Subject: New branch and feature freeze for Lucene 9.4.0

Thanks for running more tests, Michael. It is encouraging that you saw a similar performance between 9.3 and 9.4. I will also run more tests with different parameters. On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 9:30 AM Michael Sokolov wrote: > As a follow-up, I ran a test using the same parameters as above, only

Re: Subject: New branch and feature freeze for Lucene 9.4.0

As a follow-up, I ran a test using the same parameters as above, only changing M=200 to M=16. This did result in a single segment in both cases (9.3, 9.4) and the performance was pretty similar; within noise I think. The main difference I saw was that the 9.3 index was written using CFS: 9.4:

Re: Subject: New branch and feature freeze for Lucene 9.4.0

I ran another test. I thought I had increased the RAM buffer size to 8G and heap to 16G. However I still see two segments in the index that was created. And looking at the infostream I see: dir=MMapDirectory@/local/home/sokolovm/workspace/knn-perf/glove-100-angular.hdf5-train-200-200.index

Re: Subject: New branch and feature freeze for Lucene 9.4.0

Hi Mayya, thanks for persisting - I think we need to wrestle this to the ground for sure. In the test I ran, RAM buffer was the default checked in, which is weirdly: 1994MB. I did not specifically set heap size. I used maxConn/M=200. I'll try with larger buffer to see if I can get 9.4 to produce

Re: Subject: New branch and feature freeze for Lucene 9.4.0

Hello Michael, Thanks for checking. Sorry for bringing this up again. First of all, I am ok with proceeding with the Lucene 9.4 release and leaving the performance investigations for later. I am interested in what's the maxConn/M value you used for your tests? What was the heap memory and the

Re: Subject: New branch and feature freeze for Lucene 9.4.0

Done. Thanks! > On 9 Sep 2022, at 16:32, Michael Sokolov wrote: > > Hi Alan - I checked out the interval queries patch; seems pretty safe, > please go ahead and port to 9.4. Thanks! > > Mike > > On Fri, Sep 9, 2022 at 10:41 AM Alan Woodward wrote: >> >> Hi Mike, >> >> I’ve opened

Re: Subject: New branch and feature freeze for Lucene 9.4.0

Hi Alan - I checked out the interval queries patch; seems pretty safe, please go ahead and port to 9.4. Thanks! Mike On Fri, Sep 9, 2022 at 10:41 AM Alan Woodward wrote: > > Hi Mike, > > I’ve opened https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/11760 as a small bug fix PR > for a problem with

Re: Subject: New branch and feature freeze for Lucene 9.4.0

Hi Mike, I’ve opened https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/11760 as a small bug fix PR for a problem with interval queries. Am I OK to port this to the 9.4 branch? Thanks, Alan > On 2 Sep 2022, at 20:42, Michael Sokolov

Re: Subject: New branch and feature freeze for Lucene 9.4.0

Thanks Julie, I looked and left some minor comments. Let's target that searchNearestVectors refactor for 9.4.0. As for removing the generics, it would be great if we can further simplify, but agree it doesn't seem critical to target this release, although if we can get it pushed by next week that

Re: Subject: New branch and feature freeze for Lucene 9.4.0

Hi Mike, I've been working on follow-up refactors to the vector encoding work we just added in 9.4 (https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/1054) and had a couple things to check with you. First, I opened a PR to remove LeafReader#searchNearestVectorsExhaustively (

Re: Subject: New branch and feature freeze for Lucene 9.4.0

> Branch branch_9_4 has been cut and versions updated to 9.5 on stable branch. Then the GitHub Milestone for 9.5 also needs to be created. This time, I created Milestone 9.5.0. We should include it in the release process. https://github.com/apache/lucene/milestone/4 2022年9月3日(土) 4:42 Michael

Subject: New branch and feature freeze for Lucene 9.4.0

NOTICE: Branch branch_9_4 has been cut and versions updated to 9.5 on stable branch. Please observe the normal rules: * No new features may be committed to the branch. * Documentation patches, build patches and serious bug fixes may be committed to the branch. However, you should submit all