You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@lucene.apache.org by "Michael McCandless (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org> on 2008/11/18 11:33:44 UTC
[jira] Created: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
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
Fix For: 2.9
Attachments: LUCENE-1458.patch
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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: [jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible indexing
Posted by Jason Rutherglen <ja...@gmail.com>.
> it'd be nice to genericize MultiLevelSkipListWriter so that it could index
arbitrary files
+1 on this idea. Using skip lists for the term index would be an
improvement.
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 12:27 PM, Michael McCandless (JIRA) <jira@apache.org
> wrote:
>
> [
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12648739#action_12648739]
>
> Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-1458:
> --------------------------------------------
>
> bq. Can we design a format that allows us rely upon the operating system's
> virtual memory and avoid caching in process memory altogether?
>
> Interesting! I've been wondering what you're up to over on KS, Marvin :)
>
> I'm not sure it'll be a win in practice: I'm not sure I'd trust the
> OS's IO cache to "make the right decisions" about what to cache. Plus
> during that binary search the IO system is loading whole pages into
> the IO cache, even though you'll only peak at the first few bytes of
> each.
>
> We could also explore something in-between, eg it'd be nice to
> genericize MultiLevelSkipListWriter so that it could index arbitrary
> files, then we could use that to index the terms dict. You could
> choose to spend dedicated process RAM on the higher levels of the skip
> tree, and then tentatively trust IO cache for the lower levels.
>
> I'd like to eventually make the TermsDict index pluggable so one could
> swap in different indexers like this (it's not now).
>
>
> > 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
> > Fix For: 2.9
> >
> > Attachments: LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch
> >
> >
> > 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.
>
> --
> 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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>
Re: [jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by Mark Miller <ma...@gmail.com>.
Michael McCandless wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 8:01 AM, Mark Miller (JIRA) <ji...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
>> it only complained about the $id issue in wildcardtermenum
>>
>
> This bites me all the time.
>
> Can we simply remove all $Id tags from the class javadocs? Is there
> some value to having $Id in the javadocs?
>
> It produces a line like this:
>
> * @version $Id: WildcardTermEnum.java 783371 2009-06-10 14:39:56Z mikemccand $
>
> Ie, source file name, svn revision, date, user who last committed.
>
> If for some reason we find this information compelling we could move
> it eg above the class javadoc into a comment? Then I think at least
> we'd have fewer patch problems...
>
> Mike
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>
No use it for myself - and since its only in a handful of classes, I
can't see someone making an argument to keep it. We either want it
across the board or we plain don't need it IMO. And its got no value to me.
--
- Mark
http://www.lucidimagination.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: [jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by Michael McCandless <lu...@mikemccandless.com>.
OK I'll remove them! It's so much fun removing stuff :) Wish we
could do this more often!
Mike
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 10:36 AM, Michael Busch <bu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/7/09 5:29 AM, Michael McCandless wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 8:01 AM, Mark Miller (JIRA)<ji...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> it only complained about the $id issue in wildcardtermenum
>>>
>>
>> This bites me all the time.
>>
>> Can we simply remove all $Id tags from the class javadocs?
>>
>
> +1
> Those annoy me too... let's toss them!
>
> Michael
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: [jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by Michael Busch <bu...@gmail.com>.
On 10/7/09 5:29 AM, Michael McCandless wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 8:01 AM, Mark Miller (JIRA)<ji...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
>> it only complained about the $id issue in wildcardtermenum
>>
> This bites me all the time.
>
> Can we simply remove all $Id tags from the class javadocs?
>
+1
Those annoy me too... let's toss them!
Michael
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: [jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by Michael McCandless <lu...@mikemccandless.com>.
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 8:01 AM, Mark Miller (JIRA) <ji...@apache.org> wrote:
> it only complained about the $id issue in wildcardtermenum
This bites me all the time.
Can we simply remove all $Id tags from the class javadocs? Is there
some value to having $Id in the javadocs?
It produces a line like this:
* @version $Id: WildcardTermEnum.java 783371 2009-06-10 14:39:56Z mikemccand $
Ie, source file name, svn revision, date, user who last committed.
If for some reason we find this information compelling we could move
it eg above the class javadoc into a comment? Then I think at least
we'd have fewer patch problems...
Mike
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: [jira] Updated: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible indexing
Posted by Michael McCandless <lu...@mikemccandless.com>.
Ahh I see; you're right, TermEnum could make use of MutableString, or
even a simple char[], for reuse.
But I wonder how much this'd help typical apps. Ie, most queries
spend nearly all of their time iterating through doc/position
postings? Looking up the term should be a smallish part of the cost.
RangeQuery, and populating the FieldCache, seem to be the be the parts
that'd gain from reuse
At least one step forward in LUCENE-1458 is the TermsEnum now produces
String instead of Term, since with the new API you interact with a
field at a time.
Mike
Jason Rutherglen wrote:
> I was thinking of any API that returns strings like TermEnum
> returning Term which contains the text string for example. Unless
> we're returning Tokens now instead of Terms?
>
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 1:30 PM, Michael McCandless <lucene@mikemccandless.com
> > wrote:
>
> MutableString looks cool but totally different from flexible indexing.
>
> Mike
>
>
> Jason Rutherglen wrote:
>
> On a side note, and I have not looked at the flexible indexing API
> enough to know if there is some equivalent but are we moving to
> something like MG4J's MutableString http://mg4j.dsi.unimi.it/docs/it/unimi/dsi/mg4j/util/MutableString.html
> instead of java.lang.String objects?
>
> On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 2:33 AM, Michael McCandless (JIRA) <jira@apache.org
> > wrote:
>
> [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
> ]
>
> Michael McCandless updated LUCENE-1458:
> ---------------------------------------
>
> Attachment: LUCENE-1458.patch
>
> > 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
> > Fix For: 2.9
> >
> > Attachments: LUCENE-1458.patch
> >
> >
> > 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.
>
> --
> 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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: [jira] Updated: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible indexing
Posted by Jason Rutherglen <ja...@gmail.com>.
I was thinking of any API that returns strings like TermEnum returning Term
which contains the text string for example. Unless we're returning Tokens
now instead of Terms?
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 1:30 PM, Michael McCandless <
lucene@mikemccandless.com> wrote:
>
> MutableString looks cool but totally different from flexible indexing.
>
> Mike
>
>
> Jason Rutherglen wrote:
>
> On a side note, and I have not looked at the flexible indexing API enough
>> to know if there is some equivalent but are we moving to something like
>> MG4J's MutableString
>> http://mg4j.dsi.unimi.it/docs/it/unimi/dsi/mg4j/util/MutableString.html instead
>> of java.lang.String objects?
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 2:33 AM, Michael McCandless (JIRA) <
>> jira@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> [
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
>> ]
>>
>> Michael McCandless updated LUCENE-1458:
>> ---------------------------------------
>>
>> Attachment: LUCENE-1458.patch
>>
>> > 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
>> > Fix For: 2.9
>> >
>> > Attachments: LUCENE-1458.patch
>> >
>> >
>> > 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.
>>
>> --
>> 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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>>
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>
Re: [jira] Updated: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible indexing
Posted by Michael McCandless <lu...@mikemccandless.com>.
MutableString looks cool but totally different from flexible indexing.
Mike
Jason Rutherglen wrote:
> On a side note, and I have not looked at the flexible indexing API
> enough to know if there is some equivalent but are we moving to
> something like MG4J's MutableString http://mg4j.dsi.unimi.it/docs/it/unimi/dsi/mg4j/util/MutableString.html
> instead of java.lang.String objects?
>
> On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 2:33 AM, Michael McCandless (JIRA) <jira@apache.org
> > wrote:
>
> [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
> ]
>
> Michael McCandless updated LUCENE-1458:
> ---------------------------------------
>
> Attachment: LUCENE-1458.patch
>
> > 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
> > Fix For: 2.9
> >
> > Attachments: LUCENE-1458.patch
> >
> >
> > 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.
>
> --
> 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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: [jira] Updated: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible indexing
Posted by Jason Rutherglen <ja...@gmail.com>.
On a side note, and I have not looked at the flexible indexing API enough to
know if there is some equivalent but are we moving to something like MG4J's
MutableString
http://mg4j.dsi.unimi.it/docs/it/unimi/dsi/mg4j/util/MutableString.htmlinstead
of java.lang.String objects?
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 2:33 AM, Michael McCandless (JIRA)
<ji...@apache.org>wrote:
>
> [
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel]
>
> Michael McCandless updated LUCENE-1458:
> ---------------------------------------
>
> Attachment: LUCENE-1458.patch
>
> > 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
> > Fix For: 2.9
> >
> > Attachments: LUCENE-1458.patch
> >
> >
> > 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.
>
> --
> 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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>
Re: [jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible indexing
Posted by eks dev <ek...@yahoo.co.uk>.
I think it is configurable, do not know if default or not
________________________________
From: Jason Rutherglen <ja...@gmail.com>
To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
Sent: Tuesday, 25 November, 2008 23:39:15
Subject: Re: [jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible indexing
> simple default could be B-Tree with prefix compression, it never
disappoints and is relatively simple to implement. Berkeley DB (java
edition) uses this
Just to clarify, are you saying BDB Java performs prefix compression by default?
On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 6:38 AM, eks dev <ek...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
that's the way to go!
simple default could be B-Tree with prefix compression, it never disappoints and is relatively simple to implement. Berkeley DB (java edition) uses this, I think apache xindice as well ...
if you really go heavyweight, than String B-Tree looks interesting as it mixes Patricia Trie features into B-Tree framework.
but, having anything around FSTs, Aho Corasick automata, tries family (Patricia, Ternary Search Tree), DAWGs... would make Fuzzy search usable (think turbo SpellChecker without separate index). Also making simple and not so simple wildcard searches is trivial!
There is a simple way to calculate Edit Distance (weighted) walking trie structures with some sort of beam (a few examples how this works on in-memory structures: http://code.google.com/p/trie/wiki/Status , Lingpipe spell checker and chunker... ). The trick is that you do not need to calculate distance against all terms, you recycle DP matrix for prefixes.
just opening a possiblity to do it at all is obvoius step one :)
Great work Mike, as usual.
cheers, eks
----- Original Message ----
> From: Michael McCandless <lu...@mikemccandless.com>
> To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
> Sent: Saturday, 22 November, 2008 14:46:38
> Subject: Re: [jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible indexing
>
> Thinking about this more...
>
> One way to compress the terms index in RAM and on disk would be to use
> a pre-compiled (during indexing) letter FST (finite state transducer).
>
> It would be similar to a letter-trie, which is similar to a binary
> tree except at each node you have N letters as children, so that
> common prefixes are shared. But an FST also shares the common
> suffixes, and "outputs" the data you need (in our case the long
> offsets into the main terms dict file) in the middle of the word when
> you've identified its unique prefix.
>
> To look up a term in the index, you walk letter by letter down this
> tree. At some point you may find no letter matching your term, at
> which point you'd fallback to the highest letter lower than the one
> you wanted (since we want to look up highest term <= target).
> Eventually you will hit an output, which you record as the offset into
> main terms file. After the output there's only 1 edge leaving every
> node (in the common suffix part of the FST) but you have to keep
> walking those edges to fully reconstruct the term you just found.
>
> I'm sure there are clever implementations that would minimize RAM
> usage.
>
> If we [eventually] make the terms index pluggable then people can
> explore these different approaches...
>
> Mike
>
> Jason Rutherglen wrote:
>
> > It would be nice to have btree like features such as previous(), min and max.
> Also a unique sequence id per term that enables faster lookup if the term id is
> known.
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 1:38 PM, Michael McCandless
> wrote:
> >
> > I think we wouldn't do any term compression for the btree, at least for the
> parts loaded in RAM (we don't today, ie, we create the full Term or String as an
> array).
> >
> > For the parts left on disk we should be able to do something similar to what
> we do today, eg for child nodes only encode the "delta" wrt the parent node?
> >
> > Mike
> >
> >
> > Jason Rutherglen wrote:
> >
> > Michael B: Are you interested in making column stride fields realtime and use
> the btree for the terms? This is an idea I started on I called tag index where
> the postings are divided into blocks. The blocks can then be replaced in memory
> with periodic flush to disk as the in ram postings grows.
> >
> > Michael M: How would the term compression be handled in a btree model?
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 2:29 AM, Michael McCandless (JIRA)
> wrote:
> >
> > [
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12648971#action_12648971
> ]
> >
> > Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-1458:
> > --------------------------------------------
> >
> > bq. So something like a B+Tree would probably work better.
> >
> > I agree, btree is a better fit, though we don't need insertion & deletion
> operations since each segment is write once.
> >
> > > 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
> > > Fix For: 2.9
> > >
> > > Attachments: LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch
> > >
> > >
> > > 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.
> >
> > --
> > 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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> >
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: [jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible indexing
Posted by Jason Rutherglen <ja...@gmail.com>.
> simple default could be B-Tree with prefix compression, it never
disappoints and is relatively simple to implement. Berkeley DB (java
edition) uses this
Just to clarify, are you saying BDB Java performs prefix compression by
default?
On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 6:38 AM, eks dev <ek...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> that's the way to go!
>
> simple default could be B-Tree with prefix compression, it never
> disappoints and is relatively simple to implement. Berkeley DB (java
> edition) uses this, I think apache xindice as well ...
>
> if you really go heavyweight, than String B-Tree looks interesting as it
> mixes Patricia Trie features into B-Tree framework.
>
> but, having anything around FSTs, Aho Corasick automata, tries family
> (Patricia, Ternary Search Tree), DAWGs... would make Fuzzy search usable
> (think turbo SpellChecker without separate index). Also making simple and
> not so simple wildcard searches is trivial!
> There is a simple way to calculate Edit Distance (weighted) walking trie
> structures with some sort of beam (a few examples how this works on
> in-memory structures: http://code.google.com/p/trie/wiki/Status , Lingpipe
> spell checker and chunker... ). The trick is that you do not need to
> calculate distance against all terms, you recycle DP matrix for prefixes.
>
> just opening a possiblity to do it at all is obvoius step one :)
>
> Great work Mike, as usual.
>
> cheers, eks
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> > From: Michael McCandless <lu...@mikemccandless.com>
> > To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > Sent: Saturday, 22 November, 2008 14:46:38
> > Subject: Re: [jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards
> flexible indexing
> >
> > Thinking about this more...
> >
> > One way to compress the terms index in RAM and on disk would be to use
> > a pre-compiled (during indexing) letter FST (finite state transducer).
> >
> > It would be similar to a letter-trie, which is similar to a binary
> > tree except at each node you have N letters as children, so that
> > common prefixes are shared. But an FST also shares the common
> > suffixes, and "outputs" the data you need (in our case the long
> > offsets into the main terms dict file) in the middle of the word when
> > you've identified its unique prefix.
> >
> > To look up a term in the index, you walk letter by letter down this
> > tree. At some point you may find no letter matching your term, at
> > which point you'd fallback to the highest letter lower than the one
> > you wanted (since we want to look up highest term <= target).
> > Eventually you will hit an output, which you record as the offset into
> > main terms file. After the output there's only 1 edge leaving every
> > node (in the common suffix part of the FST) but you have to keep
> > walking those edges to fully reconstruct the term you just found.
> >
> > I'm sure there are clever implementations that would minimize RAM
> > usage.
> >
> > If we [eventually] make the terms index pluggable then people can
> > explore these different approaches...
> >
> > Mike
> >
> > Jason Rutherglen wrote:
> >
> > > It would be nice to have btree like features such as previous(), min
> and max.
> > Also a unique sequence id per term that enables faster lookup if the term
> id is
> > known.
> > >
> > > On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 1:38 PM, Michael McCandless
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I think we wouldn't do any term compression for the btree, at least for
> the
> > parts loaded in RAM (we don't today, ie, we create the full Term or
> String as an
> > array).
> > >
> > > For the parts left on disk we should be able to do something similar to
> what
> > we do today, eg for child nodes only encode the "delta" wrt the parent
> node?
> > >
> > > Mike
> > >
> > >
> > > Jason Rutherglen wrote:
> > >
> > > Michael B: Are you interested in making column stride fields realtime
> and use
> > the btree for the terms? This is an idea I started on I called tag index
> where
> > the postings are divided into blocks. The blocks can then be replaced in
> memory
> > with periodic flush to disk as the in ram postings grows.
> > >
> > > Michael M: How would the term compression be handled in a btree model?
> > >
> > > On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 2:29 AM, Michael McCandless (JIRA)
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > [
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12648971#action_12648971
> > ]
> > >
> > > Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-1458:
> > > --------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > bq. So something like a B+Tree would probably work better.
> > >
> > > I agree, btree is a better fit, though we don't need insertion &
> deletion
> > operations since each segment is write once.
> > >
> > > > 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
> > > > Fix For: 2.9
> > > >
> > > > Attachments: LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch,
> LUCENE-1458.patch
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 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.
> > >
> > > --
> > > 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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>
Re: [jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible indexing
Posted by eks dev <ek...@yahoo.co.uk>.
that's the way to go!
simple default could be B-Tree with prefix compression, it never disappoints and is relatively simple to implement. Berkeley DB (java edition) uses this, I think apache xindice as well ...
if you really go heavyweight, than String B-Tree looks interesting as it mixes Patricia Trie features into B-Tree framework.
but, having anything around FSTs, Aho Corasick automata, tries family (Patricia, Ternary Search Tree), DAWGs... would make Fuzzy search usable (think turbo SpellChecker without separate index). Also making simple and not so simple wildcard searches is trivial!
There is a simple way to calculate Edit Distance (weighted) walking trie structures with some sort of beam (a few examples how this works on in-memory structures: http://code.google.com/p/trie/wiki/Status , Lingpipe spell checker and chunker... ). The trick is that you do not need to calculate distance against all terms, you recycle DP matrix for prefixes.
just opening a possiblity to do it at all is obvoius step one :)
Great work Mike, as usual.
cheers, eks
----- Original Message ----
> From: Michael McCandless <lu...@mikemccandless.com>
> To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
> Sent: Saturday, 22 November, 2008 14:46:38
> Subject: Re: [jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible indexing
>
> Thinking about this more...
>
> One way to compress the terms index in RAM and on disk would be to use
> a pre-compiled (during indexing) letter FST (finite state transducer).
>
> It would be similar to a letter-trie, which is similar to a binary
> tree except at each node you have N letters as children, so that
> common prefixes are shared. But an FST also shares the common
> suffixes, and "outputs" the data you need (in our case the long
> offsets into the main terms dict file) in the middle of the word when
> you've identified its unique prefix.
>
> To look up a term in the index, you walk letter by letter down this
> tree. At some point you may find no letter matching your term, at
> which point you'd fallback to the highest letter lower than the one
> you wanted (since we want to look up highest term <= target).
> Eventually you will hit an output, which you record as the offset into
> main terms file. After the output there's only 1 edge leaving every
> node (in the common suffix part of the FST) but you have to keep
> walking those edges to fully reconstruct the term you just found.
>
> I'm sure there are clever implementations that would minimize RAM
> usage.
>
> If we [eventually] make the terms index pluggable then people can
> explore these different approaches...
>
> Mike
>
> Jason Rutherglen wrote:
>
> > It would be nice to have btree like features such as previous(), min and max.
> Also a unique sequence id per term that enables faster lookup if the term id is
> known.
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 1:38 PM, Michael McCandless
> wrote:
> >
> > I think we wouldn't do any term compression for the btree, at least for the
> parts loaded in RAM (we don't today, ie, we create the full Term or String as an
> array).
> >
> > For the parts left on disk we should be able to do something similar to what
> we do today, eg for child nodes only encode the "delta" wrt the parent node?
> >
> > Mike
> >
> >
> > Jason Rutherglen wrote:
> >
> > Michael B: Are you interested in making column stride fields realtime and use
> the btree for the terms? This is an idea I started on I called tag index where
> the postings are divided into blocks. The blocks can then be replaced in memory
> with periodic flush to disk as the in ram postings grows.
> >
> > Michael M: How would the term compression be handled in a btree model?
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 2:29 AM, Michael McCandless (JIRA)
> wrote:
> >
> > [
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12648971#action_12648971
> ]
> >
> > Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-1458:
> > --------------------------------------------
> >
> > bq. So something like a B+Tree would probably work better.
> >
> > I agree, btree is a better fit, though we don't need insertion & deletion
> operations since each segment is write once.
> >
> > > 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
> > > Fix For: 2.9
> > >
> > > Attachments: LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch
> > >
> > >
> > > 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.
> >
> > --
> > 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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> >
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: [jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible indexing
Posted by Michael McCandless <lu...@mikemccandless.com>.
Thinking about this more...
One way to compress the terms index in RAM and on disk would be to use
a pre-compiled (during indexing) letter FST (finite state transducer).
It would be similar to a letter-trie, which is similar to a binary
tree except at each node you have N letters as children, so that
common prefixes are shared. But an FST also shares the common
suffixes, and "outputs" the data you need (in our case the long
offsets into the main terms dict file) in the middle of the word when
you've identified its unique prefix.
To look up a term in the index, you walk letter by letter down this
tree. At some point you may find no letter matching your term, at
which point you'd fallback to the highest letter lower than the one
you wanted (since we want to look up highest term <= target).
Eventually you will hit an output, which you record as the offset into
main terms file. After the output there's only 1 edge leaving every
node (in the common suffix part of the FST) but you have to keep
walking those edges to fully reconstruct the term you just found.
I'm sure there are clever implementations that would minimize RAM
usage.
If we [eventually] make the terms index pluggable then people can
explore these different approaches...
Mike
Jason Rutherglen wrote:
> It would be nice to have btree like features such as previous(), min
> and max. Also a unique sequence id per term that enables faster
> lookup if the term id is known.
>
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 1:38 PM, Michael McCandless <lucene@mikemccandless.com
> > wrote:
>
> I think we wouldn't do any term compression for the btree, at least
> for the parts loaded in RAM (we don't today, ie, we create the full
> Term or String as an array).
>
> For the parts left on disk we should be able to do something similar
> to what we do today, eg for child nodes only encode the "delta" wrt
> the parent node?
>
> Mike
>
>
> Jason Rutherglen wrote:
>
> Michael B: Are you interested in making column stride fields
> realtime and use the btree for the terms? This is an idea I started
> on I called tag index where the postings are divided into blocks.
> The blocks can then be replaced in memory with periodic flush to
> disk as the in ram postings grows.
>
> Michael M: How would the term compression be handled in a btree model?
>
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 2:29 AM, Michael McCandless (JIRA) <jira@apache.org
> > wrote:
>
> [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12648971
> #action_12648971 ]
>
> Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-1458:
> --------------------------------------------
>
> bq. So something like a B+Tree would probably work better.
>
> I agree, btree is a better fit, though we don't need insertion &
> deletion operations since each segment is write once.
>
> > 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
> > Fix For: 2.9
> >
> > Attachments: LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch,
> LUCENE-1458.patch
> >
> >
> > 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.
>
> --
> 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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: [jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible indexing
Posted by Michael McCandless <lu...@mikemccandless.com>.
We could easily add a sequence ID (ord) today, for a single segment's
term dict; but merging them (so that MultiSegmentReader could also
present TermEnum.ord()) is problematic.
Mike
Jason Rutherglen wrote:
> It would be nice to have btree like features such as previous(), min
> and max. Also a unique sequence id per term that enables faster
> lookup if the term id is known.
>
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 1:38 PM, Michael McCandless <lucene@mikemccandless.com
> > wrote:
>
> I think we wouldn't do any term compression for the btree, at least
> for the parts loaded in RAM (we don't today, ie, we create the full
> Term or String as an array).
>
> For the parts left on disk we should be able to do something similar
> to what we do today, eg for child nodes only encode the "delta" wrt
> the parent node?
>
> Mike
>
>
> Jason Rutherglen wrote:
>
> Michael B: Are you interested in making column stride fields
> realtime and use the btree for the terms? This is an idea I started
> on I called tag index where the postings are divided into blocks.
> The blocks can then be replaced in memory with periodic flush to
> disk as the in ram postings grows.
>
> Michael M: How would the term compression be handled in a btree model?
>
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 2:29 AM, Michael McCandless (JIRA) <jira@apache.org
> > wrote:
>
> [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12648971
> #action_12648971 ]
>
> Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-1458:
> --------------------------------------------
>
> bq. So something like a B+Tree would probably work better.
>
> I agree, btree is a better fit, though we don't need insertion &
> deletion operations since each segment is write once.
>
> > 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
> > Fix For: 2.9
> >
> > Attachments: LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch,
> LUCENE-1458.patch
> >
> >
> > 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.
>
> --
> 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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: [jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible indexing
Posted by Jason Rutherglen <ja...@gmail.com>.
It would be nice to have btree like features such as previous(), min and
max. Also a unique sequence id per term that enables faster lookup if the
term id is known.
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 1:38 PM, Michael McCandless <
lucene@mikemccandless.com> wrote:
>
> I think we wouldn't do any term compression for the btree, at least for the
> parts loaded in RAM (we don't today, ie, we create the full Term or String
> as an array).
>
> For the parts left on disk we should be able to do something similar to
> what we do today, eg for child nodes only encode the "delta" wrt the parent
> node?
>
> Mike
>
>
> Jason Rutherglen wrote:
>
> Michael B: Are you interested in making column stride fields realtime and
>> use the btree for the terms? This is an idea I started on I called tag
>> index where the postings are divided into blocks. The blocks can then be
>> replaced in memory with periodic flush to disk as the in ram postings grows.
>>
>> Michael M: How would the term compression be handled in a btree model?
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 2:29 AM, Michael McCandless (JIRA) <
>> jira@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> [
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12648971#action_12648971
>> ]
>>
>> Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-1458:
>> --------------------------------------------
>>
>> bq. So something like a B+Tree would probably work better.
>>
>> I agree, btree is a better fit, though we don't need insertion & deletion
>> operations since each segment is write once.
>>
>> > 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
>> > Fix For: 2.9
>> >
>> > Attachments: LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch,
>> LUCENE-1458.patch
>> >
>> >
>> > 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.
>>
>> --
>> 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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>>
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>
Re: [jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible indexing
Posted by Michael McCandless <lu...@mikemccandless.com>.
I think we wouldn't do any term compression for the btree, at least
for the parts loaded in RAM (we don't today, ie, we create the full
Term or String as an array).
For the parts left on disk we should be able to do something similar
to what we do today, eg for child nodes only encode the "delta" wrt
the parent node?
Mike
Jason Rutherglen wrote:
> Michael B: Are you interested in making column stride fields
> realtime and use the btree for the terms? This is an idea I started
> on I called tag index where the postings are divided into blocks.
> The blocks can then be replaced in memory with periodic flush to
> disk as the in ram postings grows.
>
> Michael M: How would the term compression be handled in a btree model?
>
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 2:29 AM, Michael McCandless (JIRA) <jira@apache.org
> > wrote:
>
> [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12648971
> #action_12648971 ]
>
> Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-1458:
> --------------------------------------------
>
> bq. So something like a B+Tree would probably work better.
>
> I agree, btree is a better fit, though we don't need insertion &
> deletion operations since each segment is write once.
>
> > 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
> > Fix For: 2.9
> >
> > Attachments: LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch,
> LUCENE-1458.patch
> >
> >
> > 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.
>
> --
> 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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: [jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible indexing
Posted by Jason Rutherglen <ja...@gmail.com>.
Michael B: Are you interested in making column stride fields realtime and
use the btree for the terms? This is an idea I started on I called tag
index where the postings are divided into blocks. The blocks can then be
replaced in memory with periodic flush to disk as the in ram postings
grows.
Michael M: How would the term compression be handled in a btree model?
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 2:29 AM, Michael McCandless (JIRA)
<ji...@apache.org>wrote:
>
> [
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12648971#action_12648971]
>
> Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-1458:
> --------------------------------------------
>
> bq. So something like a B+Tree would probably work better.
>
> I agree, btree is a better fit, though we don't need insertion & deletion
> operations since each segment is write once.
>
> > 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
> > Fix For: 2.9
> >
> > Attachments: LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch,
> LUCENE-1458.patch
> >
> >
> > 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.
>
> --
> 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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>
Re: How to submit BM25 scoring library to Lucene
Posted by Michael McCandless <lu...@mikemccandless.com>.
Sounds great!
Yes, please open a Jira issue, create a patch, and post it.
Mike
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 5:58 AM, Yuval Feinstein <yu...@answers.com> wrote:
> Hi.
> I would like to submit a BM25 scoring library to Lucene under contrib.
> The library is a modification of Joaquin Perez Iglesias' work described at the link below:
> http://nlp.uned.es/~jperezi/Lucene-BM25/
> a. Do I need a Jira issue for this?
> b. I have explain() methods inside some Scorers. I know they are deprecated under Lucene 2.9.1.
> Do I need to erase them?
> TIA,
> Yuval Feinstein
>
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
RE: How to submit BM25 scoring library to Lucene
Posted by Yuval Feinstein <yu...@answers.com>.
Yes, indeed, I want to contribute this to the Lucene trunk.
-- Yuval
From: Avi Rosenschein [mailto:arosenschein@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, November 23, 2009 2:11 PM
To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: How to submit BM25 scoring library to Lucene
Nice. I believe you want to contribute this to the trunk (which is 3.1), not 2.9.1.
-- Avi
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 5:58 AM, Yuval Feinstein <yu...@answers.com>> wrote:
Hi.
I would like to submit a BM25 scoring library to Lucene under contrib.
The library is a modification of Joaquin Perez Iglesias' work described at the link below:
http://nlp.uned.es/~jperezi/Lucene-BM25/<http://nlp.uned.es/%7Ejperezi/Lucene-BM25/>
a. Do I need a Jira issue for this?
b. I have explain() methods inside some Scorers. I know they are deprecated under Lucene 2.9.1.
Do I need to erase them?
TIA,
Yuval Feinstein
Re: How to submit BM25 scoring library to Lucene
Posted by Avi Rosenschein <ar...@gmail.com>.
Nice. I believe you want to contribute this to the trunk (which is 3.1), not
2.9.1.
-- Avi
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 5:58 AM, Yuval Feinstein <yu...@answers.com> wrote:
> Hi.
> I would like to submit a BM25 scoring library to Lucene under contrib.
> The library is a modification of Joaquin Perez Iglesias' work described at
> the link below:
> http://nlp.uned.es/~jperezi/Lucene-BM25/<http://nlp.uned.es/%7Ejperezi/Lucene-BM25/>
> a. Do I need a Jira issue for this?
> b. I have explain() methods inside some Scorers. I know they are deprecated
> under Lucene 2.9.1.
> Do I need to erase them?
> TIA,
> Yuval Feinstein
>
>
>
>
How to submit BM25 scoring library to Lucene
Posted by Yuval Feinstein <yu...@answers.com>.
Hi.
I would like to submit a BM25 scoring library to Lucene under contrib.
The library is a modification of Joaquin Perez Iglesias' work described at the link below:
http://nlp.uned.es/~jperezi/Lucene-BM25/
a. Do I need a Jira issue for this?
b. I have explain() methods inside some Scorers. I know they are deprecated under Lucene 2.9.1.
Do I need to erase them?
TIA,
Yuval Feinstein
Re: [jira] Updated: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible indexing
Posted by Michael McCandless <lu...@mikemccandless.com>.
Flexible indexing doesn't try to address the real-time updates; it
only tries to make index writing & reading modular so that you can
plug in your own codecs for your own format.
Also, so far, I've only worked on the postings lists. I think for
column-stride fields it should be easier to implement updates.
Mike
Jason Rutherglen wrote:
> Nice! I'm looking at using PForDelta in creating the tag index type
> of system. Do you think there is an elegant way to add realtime
> updates to individual fields using the current (or future) flexible
> indexing API?
>
> On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 2:11 PM, Michael McCandless (JIRA) <jira@apache.org
> > wrote:
>
> [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
> ]
>
> Michael McCandless updated LUCENE-1458:
> ---------------------------------------
>
> Attachment: LUCENE-1458.patch
>
>
> [Attached patch]
>
> To test whether the new pluggable codec approach is flexible enough, I
> coded up "pulsing" (described in detail in
> http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/cutting90optimizations.html), where
> freq/prox info is inlined into the terms dict if the term freq is < N.
>
> It was wonderfully simple :) I just had to create a reader & a writer,
> and then switch the places that read (SegmentReader) and write
> (SegmentMerger, FreqProxTermsWriter) to use the new pulsing codec
> instead of the default one.
>
> The pulsing codec can "wrap" any other codec, ie, when a term is
> written, if the term's freq is < N, then it's inlined into the terms
> dict with the pulsing writer, else it's fed to the other codec for it
> to do whatever it normally would. The two codecs are strongly
> decoupled, so we can mix & match pulsing with other codecs like pfor.
>
> All tests pass with this pulsing codec.
>
> As a quick test I indexed first 1M docs from Wikipedia, with N=2 (ie
> terms that occur only in one document are inlined into the terms
> dict). 5.4M terms get inlined (only 1 doc) and 2.2M terms are not (>
> 1 doc). The final size of the index (after optimizing) was a bit
> smaller with pulsing (1120 MB vs 1131 MB).
>
>
> > 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
> > Fix For: 2.9
> >
> > Attachments: LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch,
> LUCENE-1458.patch
> >
> >
> > 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.
>
> --
> 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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: [jira] Updated: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible indexing
Posted by Jason Rutherglen <ja...@gmail.com>.
Nice! I'm looking at using PForDelta in creating the tag index type of
system. Do you think there is an elegant way to add realtime updates to
individual fields using the current (or future) flexible indexing API?
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 2:11 PM, Michael McCandless (JIRA)
<ji...@apache.org>wrote:
>
> [
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel]
>
> Michael McCandless updated LUCENE-1458:
> ---------------------------------------
>
> Attachment: LUCENE-1458.patch
>
>
> [Attached patch]
>
> To test whether the new pluggable codec approach is flexible enough, I
> coded up "pulsing" (described in detail in
> http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/cutting90optimizations.html), where
> freq/prox info is inlined into the terms dict if the term freq is < N.
>
> It was wonderfully simple :) I just had to create a reader & a writer,
> and then switch the places that read (SegmentReader) and write
> (SegmentMerger, FreqProxTermsWriter) to use the new pulsing codec
> instead of the default one.
>
> The pulsing codec can "wrap" any other codec, ie, when a term is
> written, if the term's freq is < N, then it's inlined into the terms
> dict with the pulsing writer, else it's fed to the other codec for it
> to do whatever it normally would. The two codecs are strongly
> decoupled, so we can mix & match pulsing with other codecs like pfor.
>
> All tests pass with this pulsing codec.
>
> As a quick test I indexed first 1M docs from Wikipedia, with N=2 (ie
> terms that occur only in one document are inlined into the terms
> dict). 5.4M terms get inlined (only 1 doc) and 2.2M terms are not (>
> 1 doc). The final size of the index (after optimizing) was a bit
> smaller with pulsing (1120 MB vs 1131 MB).
>
>
> > 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
> > Fix For: 2.9
> >
> > Attachments: LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch,
> LUCENE-1458.patch
> >
> >
> > 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.
>
> --
> 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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>
Re: [jira] Updated: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible indexing
Posted by Michael McCandless <lu...@mikemccandless.com>.
It's not that it isn't required -- it's just that it stores less info
than before.
I changed the _X.tis format such that at each seekable point (every 128
terms by default), everything is written as absolutes (term text, freq
& prox offset). This means the _X.tii file only has to store the
indexed term & offset into the _X.tis file.
Then all we need to load into RAM are two column-stride arrays: the
long offset (into the _X.tis file) and the terms. Also, in RAM I
store the terms as String[] within a per-field class, instead of
Term[], which saves the object & 2 pointer overhead.
It's similar to how video muxers store their index into key frames,
where a key frame is an "absolute" frame that can be decoded without
seeing prior frames.
I think RAM savings should be at least 50% for "typical" terms (avg 10
chars say). Longer avg term length will see less savings. But, this
savings is only your term index, so if your tii file is smallish
net/net it won't reduce RAM usage that much.
When seeking is done, we look in the index to find the nearest spot in
_X.tis before the term we are looking for, jump there, read the
absolutes for that next() term, and then read deltas to continue
scanning.
This is coded up in the FormatPostingsTermsDictWriter/Reader classes.
Mike
Jason Rutherglen wrote:
> Michael,
>
> Can you describe a bit more about why the term dictionary index is
> no longer required?
>
> Jason
>
> On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 7:41 AM, Michael McCandless (JIRA) <jira@apache.org
> > wrote:
>
> [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
> ]
>
> Michael McCandless updated LUCENE-1458:
> ---------------------------------------
>
> Attachment: LUCENE-1458.patch
>
> Woops, sorry... I was missing a bunch of files. Try this one?
>
> > 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
> > Fix For: 2.9
> >
> > Attachments: LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch
> >
> >
> > 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.
>
> --
> 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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: [jira] Updated: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible indexing
Posted by Jason Rutherglen <ja...@gmail.com>.
Michael,
Can you describe a bit more about why the term dictionary index is no longer
required?
Jason
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 7:41 AM, Michael McCandless (JIRA)
<ji...@apache.org>wrote:
>
> [
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel]
>
> Michael McCandless updated LUCENE-1458:
> ---------------------------------------
>
> Attachment: LUCENE-1458.patch
>
> Woops, sorry... I was missing a bunch of files. Try this one?
>
> > 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
> > Fix For: 2.9
> >
> > Attachments: LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch
> >
> >
> > 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.
>
> --
> 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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>
Re: [jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by Michael McCandless <lu...@mikemccandless.com>.
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 5:54 AM, Michael McCandless (JIRA)
<ji...@apache.org> wrote:
> bq. I guess TestBackwardsCompatibility.java has been removed from trunk or something? kept it here for now.
>
> Eek, it shouldn't be -- indeed it is. When did that happen? We
> should fix this (separately from this issue!).
I'm working on restoring TestBackCompat on trunk...
Mike
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: [jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible indexing
Posted by Jason Rutherglen <ja...@gmail.com>.
> In KS, the relevant IndexReader methods no longer take a Term object. (In
> fact, there IS no Term object any more -- KinoSearch::Index::Term has been
> removed.) Instead, they take a string field and a generic "Obj".
Allowing pluggable data for the term text would be good. Numeric data could
be stored as bytes instead of strings (which are costly in terms of parsing
and garbage collection). Have term payloads been discussed?
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 5:50 PM, Marvin Humphrey (JIRA) <ji...@apache.org>wrote:
>
> [
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12649569#action_12649569]
>
> Marvin Humphrey commented on LUCENE-1458:
> -----------------------------------------
>
> > Take a large Jira instance, where the app itself is also
> > consuming alot of RAM, doing alot of its own IO, etc., where perhaps
> > searching is done infrequently enough relative to other operations
> > that the OS may no longer think the pages you hit for the terms index
> > are hot enough to keep around.
>
> Search responsiveness is already compromised in such a situation, because
> we
> can all but guarantee that the posting list files have already been evicted
> from cache. If the box has enough RAM for the large JIRA instance
> including
> the Lucene index, search responsiveness won't be a problem. As soon as you
> start running a little short on RAM, though, there's no way to stop
> infrequent
> searches from being sluggish.
>
> Nevertheless, the terms index isn't that big in comparison to, say, the
> size
> of a posting list for a common term, so the cost of re-heating it isn't
> astronomical in the grand scheme of things.
>
> > Similarly, when a BG merge is burning through data, or say backup kicks
> off
> > and moves many GB, or the simple act of iterating through a big postings
> > list, the OS will gleefully evict my terms index or norms in order to
> > populate its IO cache with data it will need again for a very long time.
>
> When that background merge finishes, the new files will be hot. So, if we
> open a new IndexReader right away and that IndexReader uses mmap() to get
> at
> the file data, new segments be responsive right away.
>
> Even better, any IO caches for old segments used by the previous
> IndexReader
> may still be warm. All of this without having to decompress a bunch of
> stream
> data into per-process data structures at IndexReader startup.
>
> The terms index could indeed get evicted some of the time on busy systems,
> but
> the point is that the system IO cache usually works in our favor, even
> under
> load.
>
> As far as backup daemons blowing up everybody's cache, that's stupid,
> pathological behavior: <http://kerneltrap.org/node/3000#comment-8573>.
> Such
> apps ought to be calling madvise(ptr, len, MADV_SEQUENTIAL) so that the
> kernel
> knows it can recycle the cache pages as soon as they're cleared.
>
> >> But hey, we can simplify even further! How about dispensing with the
> index
> >> file? We can just divide the main dictionary file into blocks and binary
> >> search on that.
> >
> > I'm not convinced this'll be a win in practice. You are now paying an
> > even higher overhead cost for each "check" of your binary search,
> > especially with something like pulsing which inlines more stuff into
> > the terms dict. I agree it's simpler, but I think that's trumped by
> > the performance hit.
>
> I'm persuaded that we shouldn't do away with the terms index. Even if
> we're
> operating on a dedicated search box with gobs of RAM, loading entire cache
> pages when we only care about the first few bytes of each is poor use of
> memory bandwidth. And, just in case the cache does get blown, we'd like to
> keep the cost of rewarming down.
>
> Nathan Kurz and I brainstormed this subject in a phone call this morning,
> and
> we came up with a three-file lexicon index design:
>
> * A file which is a solid stack of 64-bit file pointers into the lexicon
> index term data. Term data UTF-8 byte length can be determined by
> subtracting the current pointer from the next one (or the file length at
> the end).
> * A file which is contains solid UTF-8 term content. (No string lengths,
> no
> file pointers, just character data.)
> * A file which is a solid stack of 64-bit file pointers into the primary
> lexicon.
>
> Since the integers are already expanded and the raw UTF-8 data can be
> compared
> as-is, those files can be memory-mapped and used as-is for binary search.
>
> > In Lucene java, the concurrency model we are aiming for is a single JVM
> > sharing a single instance of IndexReader.
>
> When I mentioned this to Nate, he remarked that we're using the OS kernel
> like
> you're using the JVM.
>
> We don't keep a single IndexReader around, but we do keep the bulk of its
> data
> cached so that we can just slap a cheap wrapper around it.
>
> > I do agree, if fork() is the basis of your concurrency model then sharing
> > pages becomes critical. However, modern OSs implement copy-on-write
> sharing
> > of VM pages after a fork, so that's another good path to sharing?
>
> Lucy/KS can't enforce that, and we wouldn't want to. It's very convenient
> to
> be able to launch a cheap search process.
>
> > Have you tried any actual tests swapping these approaches in as your
> > terms index impl?
>
> No -- changing something like this requires a lot of coding, so it's better
> to
> do thought experiments first to winnow down the options.
>
> > Tests of fully hot and fully cold ends of the
> > spectrum would be interesting, but also tests where a big segment
> > merge or a backup is running in the background...
>
> >> That doesn't meet the design goals of bringing the cost of
> opening/warming
> >> an IndexReader down to near-zero and sharing backing buffers among
> >> multiple forks.
> >
> > That's a nice goal. Our biggest cost in Lucene is warming the FieldCache,
> used
> > for sorting, function queries, etc.
>
> Exactly. It would be nice to add a plug-in indexing component that writes
> sort
> caches to files that can be memory mapped at IndexReader startup. There
> would
> be multiple files: both a solid array of 32-bit integers mapping document
> number to sort order, and the field cache values. Such a component would
> allow us to move the time it takes to read in a sort cache from
> IndexReader-startup-time to index-time.
>
> Hmm, maybe we can conflate this with a column-stride field writer and
> require
> that sort fields have a fixed width?
>
> > In my approach here, the blob is opaque to the terms dict reader: it
> > simply seeks to the right spot in the tis file, and then asks the
> > codec to decode the entry. TermsDictReader is entirely unaware of
> > what/how is stored there.
>
> Sounds good. Basically, a hash lookup.
>
> In KS, the relevant IndexReader methods no longer take a Term object. (In
> fact, there IS no Term object any more -- KinoSearch::Index::Term has been
> removed.) Instead, they take a string field and a generic "Obj".
>
> Lexicon*
> SegReader_lexicon(SegReader *self, const CharBuf *field, Obj *term)
> {
> return (Lexicon*)LexReader_Lexicon(self->lex_reader, field, term);
> }
>
> I suppose we genericize this by adding a TermsDictReader/LexReader argument
> to
> the IndexReader constructor? That way, someone can supply a custom
> subclass
> that knows how to decode custom dictionary files.
>
>
> > 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
> > Fix For: 2.9
> >
> > Attachments: LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch,
> LUCENE-1458.patch
> >
> >
> > 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.
>
> --
> 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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>
Re: [jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by John Wang <jo...@gmail.com>.
sounds good.
WIll get the rolling in a few days.
Thanks
-John
On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 1:09 PM, Mark Miller <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yup - you need for anything developed outside of Apache.
>
> Michael McCandless wrote:
> > Well, it's the usual process... pull together a big patch, open an issue,
> etc.
> >
> > Probably because it's a large amount of code (I think?) you'll need to
> > submit a software grant
> > (http://www.apache.org/licenses/software-grant.txt).
> >
> > Mike
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 2:58 PM, John Wang <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Awesome!
> >>
> >> Mike, can you let us know what the process is and the time line?
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >>
> >> -John
> >>
> >> On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 11:48 AM, Michael McCandless
> >> <lu...@mikemccandless.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> +1!
> >>>
> >>> Mike
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 2:41 PM, John Wang <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Hi guys:
> >>>>
> >>>> What are your thoughts about contributing Kamikaze as a lucene
> >>>> contrib
> >>>> package? We just finished porting kamikaze to lucene 2.9. With the new
> >>>> 2.9
> >>>> api, it allows us for some more code tuning and optimization
> >>>> improvements.
> >>>>
> >>>> We will be releasing kamikaze, it might a good time to add it to
> >>>> the
> >>>> lucene contrib package if there is interest.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks
> >>>>
> >>>> -John
> >>>>
> >>>> On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 6:20 AM, Uwe Schindler <uw...@thetaphi.de>
> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> By the way: In the last RC of Lucene 2.9 we added a new method to
> >>>>> DocIdSet
> >>>>> called isCacheable(). It is used by e.g. CachingWrapperFilter to
> >>>>> determine,
> >>>>> if a DocIdSet is easy cacheable or must be copied to an
> OpenBitSetDISI
> >>>>> (the
> >>>>> default is false, so all custom DocIdSets are copied to
> OpenBitSetDISI
> >>>>> by
> >>>>> CachingWrapperFilter, even if not needed - if a DocIdSet does not do
> >>>>> disk
> >>>>> IO
> >>>>> and have a fast iterator like e.g. the FieldCache ones in
> >>>>> FieldCacheRangeFilter, it should return true; see CHANGES.txt). Maybe
> >>>>> this
> >>>>> should also be added to Kamikaze, which is a really nice project!
> >>>>> Especially
> >>>>> filter DocIdSets should pass this method to its delegate (see
> >>>>> FilterDocIdSet
> >>>>> in Lucene).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -----
> >>>>> Uwe Schindler
> >>>>> H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen
> >>>>> http://www.thetaphi.de
> >>>>> eMail: uwe@thetaphi.de
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>>> From: John Wang (JIRA) [mailto:jira@apache.org]
> >>>>>> Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 3:14 PM
> >>>>>> To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
> >>>>>> Subject: [jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards
> >>>>>> flexible
> >>>>>> indexing
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-
> >>>>>> 1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-
> >>>>>> tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12759112#action_12759112 ]
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> John Wang commented on LUCENE-1458:
> >>>>>> -----------------------------------
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Just a FYI: Kamikaze was originally started as our sandbox for
> Lucene
> >>>>>> contributions until 2.4 is ready. (we needed the DocIdSet/Iterator
> >>>>>> abstraction that was migrated from Solr)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> It has three components:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 1) P4Delta
> >>>>>> 2) Logical boolean operations on DocIdSet/Iterators (I have created
> a
> >>>>>> jira
> >>>>>> ticket and a patch for Lucene awhile ago with performance numbers.
> It
> >>>>>> is
> >>>>>> significantly faster than DisjunctionScorer)
> >>>>>> 3) algorithm to determine which DocIdSet implementations to use
> given
> >>>>>> some
> >>>>>> parameters, e.g. miniD,maxid,id count etc. It learns and adjust from
> >>>>>> the
> >>>>>> application behavior if not all parameters are given.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> So please feel free to incorporate anything you see if or move it to
> >>>>>> contrib.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 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.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
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 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.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> 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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> >>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> >>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> - Mark
>
> http://www.lucidimagination.com
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>
Re: [jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by Mark Miller <ma...@gmail.com>.
Yup - you need for anything developed outside of Apache.
Michael McCandless wrote:
> Well, it's the usual process... pull together a big patch, open an issue, etc.
>
> Probably because it's a large amount of code (I think?) you'll need to
> submit a software grant
> (http://www.apache.org/licenses/software-grant.txt).
>
> Mike
>
> On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 2:58 PM, John Wang <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Awesome!
>>
>> Mike, can you let us know what the process is and the time line?
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> -John
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 11:48 AM, Michael McCandless
>> <lu...@mikemccandless.com> wrote:
>>
>>> +1!
>>>
>>> Mike
>>>
>>> On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 2:41 PM, John Wang <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi guys:
>>>>
>>>> What are your thoughts about contributing Kamikaze as a lucene
>>>> contrib
>>>> package? We just finished porting kamikaze to lucene 2.9. With the new
>>>> 2.9
>>>> api, it allows us for some more code tuning and optimization
>>>> improvements.
>>>>
>>>> We will be releasing kamikaze, it might a good time to add it to
>>>> the
>>>> lucene contrib package if there is interest.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>>
>>>> -John
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 6:20 AM, Uwe Schindler <uw...@thetaphi.de> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> By the way: In the last RC of Lucene 2.9 we added a new method to
>>>>> DocIdSet
>>>>> called isCacheable(). It is used by e.g. CachingWrapperFilter to
>>>>> determine,
>>>>> if a DocIdSet is easy cacheable or must be copied to an OpenBitSetDISI
>>>>> (the
>>>>> default is false, so all custom DocIdSets are copied to OpenBitSetDISI
>>>>> by
>>>>> CachingWrapperFilter, even if not needed - if a DocIdSet does not do
>>>>> disk
>>>>> IO
>>>>> and have a fast iterator like e.g. the FieldCache ones in
>>>>> FieldCacheRangeFilter, it should return true; see CHANGES.txt). Maybe
>>>>> this
>>>>> should also be added to Kamikaze, which is a really nice project!
>>>>> Especially
>>>>> filter DocIdSets should pass this method to its delegate (see
>>>>> FilterDocIdSet
>>>>> in Lucene).
>>>>>
>>>>> -----
>>>>> Uwe Schindler
>>>>> H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen
>>>>> http://www.thetaphi.de
>>>>> eMail: uwe@thetaphi.de
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: John Wang (JIRA) [mailto:jira@apache.org]
>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 3:14 PM
>>>>>> To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
>>>>>> Subject: [jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards
>>>>>> flexible
>>>>>> indexing
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-
>>>>>> 1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-
>>>>>> tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12759112#action_12759112 ]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> John Wang commented on LUCENE-1458:
>>>>>> -----------------------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just a FYI: Kamikaze was originally started as our sandbox for Lucene
>>>>>> contributions until 2.4 is ready. (we needed the DocIdSet/Iterator
>>>>>> abstraction that was migrated from Solr)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It has three components:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1) P4Delta
>>>>>> 2) Logical boolean operations on DocIdSet/Iterators (I have created a
>>>>>> jira
>>>>>> ticket and a patch for Lucene awhile ago with performance numbers. It
>>>>>> is
>>>>>> significantly faster than DisjunctionScorer)
>>>>>> 3) algorithm to determine which DocIdSet implementations to use given
>>>>>> some
>>>>>> parameters, e.g. miniD,maxid,id count etc. It learns and adjust from
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> application behavior if not all parameters are given.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So please feel free to incorporate anything you see if or move it to
>>>>>> contrib.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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.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
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> 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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>
--
- Mark
http://www.lucidimagination.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: [jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by Michael McCandless <lu...@mikemccandless.com>.
Well, it's the usual process... pull together a big patch, open an issue, etc.
Probably because it's a large amount of code (I think?) you'll need to
submit a software grant
(http://www.apache.org/licenses/software-grant.txt).
Mike
On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 2:58 PM, John Wang <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Awesome!
>
> Mike, can you let us know what the process is and the time line?
>
> Thanks
>
> -John
>
> On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 11:48 AM, Michael McCandless
> <lu...@mikemccandless.com> wrote:
>>
>> +1!
>>
>> Mike
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 2:41 PM, John Wang <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Hi guys:
>> >
>> > What are your thoughts about contributing Kamikaze as a lucene
>> > contrib
>> > package? We just finished porting kamikaze to lucene 2.9. With the new
>> > 2.9
>> > api, it allows us for some more code tuning and optimization
>> > improvements.
>> >
>> > We will be releasing kamikaze, it might a good time to add it to
>> > the
>> > lucene contrib package if there is interest.
>> >
>> > Thanks
>> >
>> > -John
>> >
>> > On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 6:20 AM, Uwe Schindler <uw...@thetaphi.de> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> By the way: In the last RC of Lucene 2.9 we added a new method to
>> >> DocIdSet
>> >> called isCacheable(). It is used by e.g. CachingWrapperFilter to
>> >> determine,
>> >> if a DocIdSet is easy cacheable or must be copied to an OpenBitSetDISI
>> >> (the
>> >> default is false, so all custom DocIdSets are copied to OpenBitSetDISI
>> >> by
>> >> CachingWrapperFilter, even if not needed - if a DocIdSet does not do
>> >> disk
>> >> IO
>> >> and have a fast iterator like e.g. the FieldCache ones in
>> >> FieldCacheRangeFilter, it should return true; see CHANGES.txt). Maybe
>> >> this
>> >> should also be added to Kamikaze, which is a really nice project!
>> >> Especially
>> >> filter DocIdSets should pass this method to its delegate (see
>> >> FilterDocIdSet
>> >> in Lucene).
>> >>
>> >> -----
>> >> Uwe Schindler
>> >> H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen
>> >> http://www.thetaphi.de
>> >> eMail: uwe@thetaphi.de
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > -----Original Message-----
>> >> > From: John Wang (JIRA) [mailto:jira@apache.org]
>> >> > Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 3:14 PM
>> >> > To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
>> >> > Subject: [jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards
>> >> > flexible
>> >> > indexing
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-
>> >> > 1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-
>> >> > tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12759112#action_12759112 ]
>> >> >
>> >> > John Wang commented on LUCENE-1458:
>> >> > -----------------------------------
>> >> >
>> >> > Just a FYI: Kamikaze was originally started as our sandbox for Lucene
>> >> > contributions until 2.4 is ready. (we needed the DocIdSet/Iterator
>> >> > abstraction that was migrated from Solr)
>> >> >
>> >> > It has three components:
>> >> >
>> >> > 1) P4Delta
>> >> > 2) Logical boolean operations on DocIdSet/Iterators (I have created a
>> >> > jira
>> >> > ticket and a patch for Lucene awhile ago with performance numbers. It
>> >> > is
>> >> > significantly faster than DisjunctionScorer)
>> >> > 3) algorithm to determine which DocIdSet implementations to use given
>> >> > some
>> >> > parameters, e.g. miniD,maxid,id count etc. It learns and adjust from
>> >> > the
>> >> > application behavior if not all parameters are given.
>> >> >
>> >> > So please feel free to incorporate anything you see if or move it to
>> >> > contrib.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > > 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.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
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > > 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.
>> >> >
>> >> > --
>> >> > 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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>> >> > For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>> >> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: [jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by John Wang <jo...@gmail.com>.
Awesome!
Mike, can you let us know what the process is and the time line?
Thanks
-John
On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 11:48 AM, Michael McCandless <
lucene@mikemccandless.com> wrote:
> +1!
>
> Mike
>
> On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 2:41 PM, John Wang <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi guys:
> >
> > What are your thoughts about contributing Kamikaze as a lucene
> contrib
> > package? We just finished porting kamikaze to lucene 2.9. With the new
> 2.9
> > api, it allows us for some more code tuning and optimization
> improvements.
> >
> > We will be releasing kamikaze, it might a good time to add it to the
> > lucene contrib package if there is interest.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > -John
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 6:20 AM, Uwe Schindler <uw...@thetaphi.de> wrote:
> >>
> >> By the way: In the last RC of Lucene 2.9 we added a new method to
> DocIdSet
> >> called isCacheable(). It is used by e.g. CachingWrapperFilter to
> >> determine,
> >> if a DocIdSet is easy cacheable or must be copied to an OpenBitSetDISI
> >> (the
> >> default is false, so all custom DocIdSets are copied to OpenBitSetDISI
> by
> >> CachingWrapperFilter, even if not needed - if a DocIdSet does not do
> disk
> >> IO
> >> and have a fast iterator like e.g. the FieldCache ones in
> >> FieldCacheRangeFilter, it should return true; see CHANGES.txt). Maybe
> this
> >> should also be added to Kamikaze, which is a really nice project!
> >> Especially
> >> filter DocIdSets should pass this method to its delegate (see
> >> FilterDocIdSet
> >> in Lucene).
> >>
> >> -----
> >> Uwe Schindler
> >> H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen
> >> http://www.thetaphi.de
> >> eMail: uwe@thetaphi.de
> >>
> >>
> >> > -----Original Message-----
> >> > From: John Wang (JIRA) [mailto:jira@apache.org]
> >> > Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 3:14 PM
> >> > To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
> >> > Subject: [jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards
> flexible
> >> > indexing
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-
> >> > 1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-
> >> > tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12759112#action_12759112 ]
> >> >
> >> > John Wang commented on LUCENE-1458:
> >> > -----------------------------------
> >> >
> >> > Just a FYI: Kamikaze was originally started as our sandbox for Lucene
> >> > contributions until 2.4 is ready. (we needed the DocIdSet/Iterator
> >> > abstraction that was migrated from Solr)
> >> >
> >> > It has three components:
> >> >
> >> > 1) P4Delta
> >> > 2) Logical boolean operations on DocIdSet/Iterators (I have created a
> >> > jira
> >> > ticket and a patch for Lucene awhile ago with performance numbers. It
> is
> >> > significantly faster than DisjunctionScorer)
> >> > 3) algorithm to determine which DocIdSet implementations to use given
> >> > some
> >> > parameters, e.g. miniD,maxid,id count etc. It learns and adjust from
> the
> >> > application behavior if not all parameters are given.
> >> >
> >> > So please feel free to incorporate anything you see if or move it to
> >> > contrib.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > > 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.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
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > 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.
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > 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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> >> > For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> >>
> >
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>
Re: [jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by Michael McCandless <lu...@mikemccandless.com>.
+1!
Mike
On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 2:41 PM, John Wang <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi guys:
>
> What are your thoughts about contributing Kamikaze as a lucene contrib
> package? We just finished porting kamikaze to lucene 2.9. With the new 2.9
> api, it allows us for some more code tuning and optimization improvements.
>
> We will be releasing kamikaze, it might a good time to add it to the
> lucene contrib package if there is interest.
>
> Thanks
>
> -John
>
> On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 6:20 AM, Uwe Schindler <uw...@thetaphi.de> wrote:
>>
>> By the way: In the last RC of Lucene 2.9 we added a new method to DocIdSet
>> called isCacheable(). It is used by e.g. CachingWrapperFilter to
>> determine,
>> if a DocIdSet is easy cacheable or must be copied to an OpenBitSetDISI
>> (the
>> default is false, so all custom DocIdSets are copied to OpenBitSetDISI by
>> CachingWrapperFilter, even if not needed - if a DocIdSet does not do disk
>> IO
>> and have a fast iterator like e.g. the FieldCache ones in
>> FieldCacheRangeFilter, it should return true; see CHANGES.txt). Maybe this
>> should also be added to Kamikaze, which is a really nice project!
>> Especially
>> filter DocIdSets should pass this method to its delegate (see
>> FilterDocIdSet
>> in Lucene).
>>
>> -----
>> Uwe Schindler
>> H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen
>> http://www.thetaphi.de
>> eMail: uwe@thetaphi.de
>>
>>
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: John Wang (JIRA) [mailto:jira@apache.org]
>> > Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 3:14 PM
>> > To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
>> > Subject: [jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
>> > indexing
>> >
>> >
>> > [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-
>> > 1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-
>> > tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12759112#action_12759112 ]
>> >
>> > John Wang commented on LUCENE-1458:
>> > -----------------------------------
>> >
>> > Just a FYI: Kamikaze was originally started as our sandbox for Lucene
>> > contributions until 2.4 is ready. (we needed the DocIdSet/Iterator
>> > abstraction that was migrated from Solr)
>> >
>> > It has three components:
>> >
>> > 1) P4Delta
>> > 2) Logical boolean operations on DocIdSet/Iterators (I have created a
>> > jira
>> > ticket and a patch for Lucene awhile ago with performance numbers. It is
>> > significantly faster than DisjunctionScorer)
>> > 3) algorithm to determine which DocIdSet implementations to use given
>> > some
>> > parameters, e.g. miniD,maxid,id count etc. It learns and adjust from the
>> > application behavior if not all parameters are given.
>> >
>> > So please feel free to incorporate anything you see if or move it to
>> > contrib.
>> >
>> >
>> > > 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.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
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > 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.
>> >
>> > --
>> > 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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>> > For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: [jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by John Wang <jo...@gmail.com>.
Hi guys:
What are your thoughts about contributing Kamikaze as a lucene contrib
package? We just finished porting kamikaze to lucene 2.9. With the new 2.9
api, it allows us for some more code tuning and optimization improvements.
We will be releasing kamikaze, it might a good time to add it to the
lucene contrib package if there is interest.
Thanks
-John
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 6:20 AM, Uwe Schindler <uw...@thetaphi.de> wrote:
> By the way: In the last RC of Lucene 2.9 we added a new method to DocIdSet
> called isCacheable(). It is used by e.g. CachingWrapperFilter to determine,
> if a DocIdSet is easy cacheable or must be copied to an OpenBitSetDISI (the
> default is false, so all custom DocIdSets are copied to OpenBitSetDISI by
> CachingWrapperFilter, even if not needed - if a DocIdSet does not do disk
> IO
> and have a fast iterator like e.g. the FieldCache ones in
> FieldCacheRangeFilter, it should return true; see CHANGES.txt). Maybe this
> should also be added to Kamikaze, which is a really nice project!
> Especially
> filter DocIdSets should pass this method to its delegate (see
> FilterDocIdSet
> in Lucene).
>
> -----
> Uwe Schindler
> H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen
> http://www.thetaphi.de
> eMail: uwe@thetaphi.de
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: John Wang (JIRA) [mailto:jira@apache.org]
> > Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 3:14 PM
> > To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > Subject: [jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
> > indexing
> >
> >
> > [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-
> > 1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-
> > tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12759112#action_12759112 ]
> >
> > John Wang commented on LUCENE-1458:
> > -----------------------------------
> >
> > Just a FYI: Kamikaze was originally started as our sandbox for Lucene
> > contributions until 2.4 is ready. (we needed the DocIdSet/Iterator
> > abstraction that was migrated from Solr)
> >
> > It has three components:
> >
> > 1) P4Delta
> > 2) Logical boolean operations on DocIdSet/Iterators (I have created a
> jira
> > ticket and a patch for Lucene awhile ago with performance numbers. It is
> > significantly faster than DisjunctionScorer)
> > 3) algorithm to determine which DocIdSet implementations to use given
> some
> > parameters, e.g. miniD,maxid,id count etc. It learns and adjust from the
> > application behavior if not all parameters are given.
> >
> > So please feel free to incorporate anything you see if or move it to
> > contrib.
> >
> >
> > > 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.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
> > >
> > >
> > > 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.
> >
> > --
> > 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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>
RE: [jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible indexing
Posted by Uwe Schindler <uw...@thetaphi.de>.
By the way: In the last RC of Lucene 2.9 we added a new method to DocIdSet
called isCacheable(). It is used by e.g. CachingWrapperFilter to determine,
if a DocIdSet is easy cacheable or must be copied to an OpenBitSetDISI (the
default is false, so all custom DocIdSets are copied to OpenBitSetDISI by
CachingWrapperFilter, even if not needed - if a DocIdSet does not do disk IO
and have a fast iterator like e.g. the FieldCache ones in
FieldCacheRangeFilter, it should return true; see CHANGES.txt). Maybe this
should also be added to Kamikaze, which is a really nice project! Especially
filter DocIdSets should pass this method to its delegate (see FilterDocIdSet
in Lucene).
-----
Uwe Schindler
H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen
http://www.thetaphi.de
eMail: uwe@thetaphi.de
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Wang (JIRA) [mailto:jira@apache.org]
> Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 3:14 PM
> To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: [jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
> indexing
>
>
> [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-
> 1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-
> tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12759112#action_12759112 ]
>
> John Wang commented on LUCENE-1458:
> -----------------------------------
>
> Just a FYI: Kamikaze was originally started as our sandbox for Lucene
> contributions until 2.4 is ready. (we needed the DocIdSet/Iterator
> abstraction that was migrated from Solr)
>
> It has three components:
>
> 1) P4Delta
> 2) Logical boolean operations on DocIdSet/Iterators (I have created a jira
> ticket and a patch for Lucene awhile ago with performance numbers. It is
> significantly faster than DisjunctionScorer)
> 3) algorithm to determine which DocIdSet implementations to use given some
> parameters, e.g. miniD,maxid,id count etc. It learns and adjust from the
> application behavior if not all parameters are given.
>
> So please feel free to incorporate anything you see if or move it to
> contrib.
>
>
> > 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.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
> >
> >
> > 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.
>
> --
> 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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Issue Comment Edited: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards
flexible indexing
Posted by "Mark Miller (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12785301#action_12785301 ]
Mark Miller edited comment on LUCENE-1458 at 12/3/09 1:20 PM:
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cool - was actually thinking about looking if you had done that yet last night (unrelatedly)
*edit*
Heh - though I should have known you handn't considering those classes came in on the merge - just confused about what has gotten down outside of merging I guess - I know there is an issue or two and for some reason thought this was one of them.
was (Author: markrmiller@gmail.com):
Cool - was actually thinking about looking if you had done that yet last night (unrelatedly)
> 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-MTQ-BW.patch, LUCENE-1458-NRQ.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.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, LUCENE-1458_rotate.patch, LUCENE-1458_sortorder_bwcompat.patch, LUCENE-1458_termenum_bwcompat.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Issue Comment Edited: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards
flexible indexing
Posted by "Yonik Seeley (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12763714#action_12763714 ]
Yonik Seeley edited comment on LUCENE-1458 at 10/8/09 2:48 PM:
---------------------------------------------------------------
Another for theTermsEnum wishlist: the ability to seek to the term *before* the given term... useful for finding the largest value in a field, etc.
I imagine "at or before" semantics would also work (like the current semantics of TermEnum in reverse)
was (Author: yseeley@gmail.com):
Another for theTermsEnum wishlist: the ability to seek to the term *before* the given term... useful for finding the largest value in a field, etc.
> 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.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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Michael Busch (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12749426#action_12749426 ]
Michael Busch commented on LUCENE-1458:
---------------------------------------
{quote}
But it sounds like you're proposing making a strong decoupling of
terms index from terms dict?
{quote}
Right.
{quote}
Right. Somehow we should genericize the "I don't need the terms
index at all" when opening a SegmentReader. Passing -1 is sort of
hackish. Though I do prefer passing up front your intentions, rather
than loading lazily (LUCENE-1609).
{quote}
I'm a bit confused. Doesn't the IndexWriter open SegmentReaders
usually with termsIndexDivisor=-1 for merge, and maybe later with
a termsIndexDivisor>0 when IndexWriter#getReader() is called?
That's what I meant with loading lazily.
I thought that's why it'd be good to separate the terms index from
the terms dict. For merge we'd open the dict reader only, and then
if getReader() is called we'd open the terms index reader and give
its reference to the dict reader.
I admit that I didn't follow the NRT changes as closely as I should
have, so I might be missing things here.
> 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.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Michael McCandless (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12764060#action_12764060 ]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-1458:
--------------------------------------------
bq. It seems I have to capture the state before readTerm in next()
Wait, how come? It seems like we should only cache if we find exactly the requested term (ie, where we return SeekStatus.FOUND)? So you should only have to capture the state once, there?
Hmm I wonder whether we should also cache the seek(ord) calls?
> 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.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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Mark Miller (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12764114#action_12764114 ]
Mark Miller commented on LUCENE-1458:
-------------------------------------
Ah - okay - that helps. I think the cache itself is currently around the right level (StandardTermsDictReader, and it gets hit pretty hard), but I thought it was funky I still had to make that read call - I think I see how it should work without that now, but just queuing up the docsReader to where it should be correctly. We will see. Vacation till Tuesday - don't let me stop you from doing it correctly if its on your timeline. Just playing over here - and I don't have a lot of time to play really.
> 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.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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Michael McCandless (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12762282#action_12762282 ]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-1458:
--------------------------------------------
bq. 1) How many terms in a field?
Actually I've already added this one (Terms.getUniqueTermCount), but I
didn't punch it through to IndexReader. I'll do that. The standard
codec (new "default" codec when writing segments) already records this
per field, so it's trivial to expose.
However, some impls may throw UOE (eg a composite IndexReader).
bq. 2) Convert back and forth between a term number and a term.
I agree this would be useful. I did have ord() in early iterations of
the TermsEnum API, but it wasn't fully implemented and I stripped it
when I switched to "just finish it already" mode :) We could think
about adding it back, though you'd also presumably need seek(int ord)
as well? (And docFreq(String field, int ord) sugar exposed in
IndexReader?).
> 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.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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Michael McCandless (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12794557#action_12794557 ]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-1458:
--------------------------------------------
This issue is "continuing" under LUCENE-2111.
> 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: Flex Branch
> Reporter: Michael McCandless
> Assignee: Michael McCandless
> Priority: Minor
> Fix For: Flex Branch
>
> 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-DocIdSetIterator.patch, LUCENE-1458-DocIdSetIterator.patch, LUCENE-1458-MTQ-BW.patch, LUCENE-1458-NRQ.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.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, LUCENE-1458_rotate.patch, LUCENE-1458_sortorder_bwcompat.patch, LUCENE-1458_termenum_bwcompat.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Michael McCandless (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12785308#action_12785308 ]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-1458:
--------------------------------------------
bq. DocsEnum should extend DocIdSetIterator
It'd be great if we could find a way to do this without a big hairball of back compat code ;) They are basically the same, except DocsEnum lets you get freq() for each doc, get the PositionsEnum positions(), and also provides a bulk read API (w/ default impl).
> 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-MTQ-BW.patch, LUCENE-1458-NRQ.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.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, LUCENE-1458_rotate.patch, LUCENE-1458_sortorder_bwcompat.patch, LUCENE-1458_termenum_bwcompat.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Updated: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Michael McCandless (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]
Michael McCandless updated LUCENE-1458:
---------------------------------------
Attachment: LUCENE-1458.tar.bz2
LUCENE-1458-back-compat.patch
New patch attached. All tests pass. The changes are mostly cutting
many things over to the flex API. Still many nocommits to address,
but I'm getting closer!
I haven't "svn up"d to all the recent the deprecations removals /
generics additions. Kinda dreading doing so :) I think I'll wait
until all deprecations are gone and then bite the bullet...
Cutting over all the MultiTermQuery subclasses was nice because all
the places where we get a TermEnum & iterate, checking if .field() is
still our field, are now cleaner because with the flex API the
TermsEnum you get is already only for your requested field.
> 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.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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Michael McCandless (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12774768#action_12774768 ]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-1458:
--------------------------------------------
OK new numbers after the above commits:
JAVA:
java version "1.5.0_19"
Java(TM) 2 Runtime Environment, Standard Edition (build 1.5.0_19-b02)
Java HotSpot(TM) Server VM (build 1.5.0_19-b02, mixed mode)
OS:
SunOS rhumba 5.11 snv_111b i86pc i386 i86pc Solaris
||Query||Deletes %||Tot hits||QPS old||QPS new||Pct change||
|body:[tec TO tet]|0.0|1934684|3.13|3.96|{color:green}26.5%{color}|
|body:[tec TO tet]|0.1|1932754|2.98|3.62|{color:green}21.5%{color}|
|body:[tec TO tet]|1.0|1915224|2.97|3.62|{color:green}21.9%{color}|
|body:[tec TO tet]|10|1741255|2.96|3.61|{color:green}22.0%{color}|
|real*|0.0|389378|27.80|28.73|{color:green}3.3%{color}|
|real*|0.1|389005|26.74|28.93|{color:green}8.2%{color}|
|real*|1.0|385434|26.61|29.04|{color:green}9.1%{color}|
|real*|10|350404|26.32|29.29|{color:green}11.3%{color}|
|1|0.0|1170209|21.81|22.27|{color:green}2.1%{color}|
|1|0.1|1169068|20.41|21.47|{color:green}5.2%{color}|
|1|1.0|1158528|20.42|21.41|{color:green}4.8%{color}|
|1|10|1053269|20.52|21.39|{color:green}4.2%{color}|
|2|0.0|1088727|23.29|23.86|{color:green}2.4%{color}|
|2|0.1|1087700|21.67|22.92|{color:green}5.8%{color}|
|2|1.0|1077788|21.77|22.80|{color:green}4.7%{color}|
|2|10|980068|21.90|23.04|{color:green}5.2%{color}|
|+1 +2|0.0|700793|7.25|6.65|{color:red}-8.3%{color}|
|+1 +2|0.1|700137|6.58|6.33|{color:red}-3.8%{color}|
|+1 +2|1.0|693756|6.50|6.32|{color:red}-2.8%{color}|
|+1 +2|10|630953|6.73|6.37|{color:red}-5.3%{color}|
|+1 -2|0.0|469416|8.11|7.27|{color:red}-10.4%{color}|
|+1 -2|0.1|468931|7.02|6.61|{color:red}-5.8%{color}|
|+1 -2|1.0|464772|7.27|6.75|{color:red}-7.2%{color}|
|+1 -2|10|422316|7.28|6.99|{color:red}-4.0%{color}|
|1 2 3 -4|0.0|1104704|4.80|4.46|{color:red}-7.1%{color}|
|1 2 3 -4|0.1|1103583|4.74|4.40|{color:red}-7.2%{color}|
|1 2 3 -4|1.0|1093634|4.72|4.45|{color:red}-5.7%{color}|
|1 2 3 -4|10|994046|4.79|4.63|{color:red}-3.3%{color}|
|"world economy"|0.0|985|19.43|16.79|{color:red}-13.6%{color}|
|"world economy"|0.1|984|18.71|16.59|{color:red}-11.3%{color}|
|"world economy"|1.0|970|19.65|16.86|{color:red}-14.2%{color}|
|"world economy"|10|884|19.69|17.25|{color:red}-12.4%{color}|
The term range query & preifx query are now a bit faster; boolean queries are somewhat slower; the phrase query shows the biggest slowdown...
> 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.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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Updated: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Robert Muir (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]
Robert Muir updated LUCENE-1458:
--------------------------------
Attachment: LUCENE-1458_sortorder_bwcompat.patch
this one is more serious.
the change to byte[] changes the sort order of lucene (at least TermEnum)
attached is a test that passes on trunk, fails on branch.
in trunk, things sort in UTF-16 binary order.
in branch, things sort in UTF-8 binary order.
these are different...
> 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.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, LUCENE-1458_sortorder_bwcompat.patch, LUCENE-1458_termenum_bwcompat.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Updated: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Mark Miller (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]
Mark Miller updated LUCENE-1458:
--------------------------------
Attachment: LUCENE-1458.patch
bq. I haven't "svn up"d to all the recent the deprecations removals / generics additions. Kinda dreading doing so :)'
Come on old man, stop clinging to emacs ;) I've got a meditation technique for that :)
Sounds like some annoyance, and I think I made a comment there - and I'm a man of my word... or child of my word - take your pick.
To trunk. Since you likely have moved on, don't worry - this was good practice - I'll do it again sometime if you'd like. I may have mis merged something little or something. I went fairly quick (I think it took like 30 or 40 min - was hoping to do it faster, but eh - sometimes I like to grind).
I didn't really look at the code, but some stuff I noticed:
java 6 in pfor Arrays.copy
skiplist stuff in codecs still have package of index - not sure what is going on there - changed them
in IndexWriter:
+ // Mark: read twice?
segmentInfos.read(directory);
+ segmentInfos.read(directory, codecs);
Core tests pass, but I didn't wait for contrib or back compat.
> 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.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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Mark Miller (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12784520#action_12784520 ]
Mark Miller commented on LUCENE-1458:
-------------------------------------
Though I do wonder ... if its not a break, why do we have the method there throwing UnsupportedExceptionOperation ... why isn't it just removed?
> 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-NRQ.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.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, LUCENE-1458_rotate.patch, LUCENE-1458_sortorder_bwcompat.patch, LUCENE-1458_termenum_bwcompat.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Uwe Schindler (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12784528#action_12784528 ]
Uwe Schindler commented on LUCENE-1458:
---------------------------------------
bq. In what comment? Would be helpful to have it in a comment above getEnum.
Will do! It's in the log message not comment.
bq. Did the BW branch pass when you did it?
I think so, at least in my checkout. I think the TermEnum test was added after 3.0?
bq. Though I do wonder ... if its not a break, why do we have the method there throwing UnsupportedExceptionOperation ... why isn't it just removed?
I did not look into the super class, which just returns null. I thought it was abstract.
> 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-NRQ.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.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, LUCENE-1458_rotate.patch, LUCENE-1458_sortorder_bwcompat.patch, LUCENE-1458_termenum_bwcompat.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Michael McCandless (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12767056#action_12767056 ]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-1458:
--------------------------------------------
I just committed fix for a major memory cost during TestIndexReaderReopen.
The new terms dict index uses fixed byte[] blocks to hold the UTF8 bytes, of size 32 KB currently. But for a tiny segment this is very wasteful. So I fixed it to trim down the last byte[] block to free up the unused space. I think TestIndexReaderReopen should no longer hit OOMs.
> 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.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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Uwe Schindler (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12785303#action_12785303 ]
Uwe Schindler commented on LUCENE-1458:
---------------------------------------
One thing I came along long time ago, but now with a new API it get's interesting again:
DocsEnum should extend DocIdSetIterator, that would make it simplier to use and implement e.g. in MatchAllDocQuery.Scorer, FieldCacheRangeFilter and so on. You could e.g. write a filter for all documents that simply returns the docs enumeration from IndexReader.
So it should be an abstract class that extends DocIdSetIterator. It has the same methods, only some methods must be a little bit renamed. The problem is, because java does not support multiple inheritace, we cannot also extends attributesource :-( Would DocIdSetIterator be an interface it would work (this is one of the cases where interfaces for really simple patterns can be used, like iterators).
> 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-MTQ-BW.patch, LUCENE-1458-NRQ.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.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, LUCENE-1458_rotate.patch, LUCENE-1458_sortorder_bwcompat.patch, LUCENE-1458_termenum_bwcompat.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Michael Busch (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12764737#action_12764737 ]
Michael Busch commented on LUCENE-1458:
---------------------------------------
Shall we create a flexible-indexing branch and commit this?
The downside of course is that we'd have to commit patches to trunk and this branch until 3.0 is out. Or we could use svn's new branch merging capabilities, which I haven't tried out yet.
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "John Wang (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12759910#action_12759910 ]
John Wang commented on LUCENE-1458:
-----------------------------------
Hi Mike:
Truly awesome work!
Quick question, are codecs per index or per field? From the wiki, it seems to be per index, if so, is it possible to make it per field?
Thanks
-John
> 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.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
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Michael McCandless (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12781024#action_12781024 ]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-1458:
--------------------------------------------
I just committed changes to flex branch to make it possible for the
codec to override how merging happens.
Basically I refactored SegmentMerger's postings merging code
(mergeTermInfos, appendPostings) onto Fields/Terms/Docs/PositionsConsumer,
so that the base class provides a default impl for merging at each
level but the codec can override if it wants. This should make issues
like LUCENE-2082 easy for a codec to implement.
> 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.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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Marvin Humphrey (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12650619#action_12650619 ]
Marvin Humphrey commented on LUCENE-1458:
-----------------------------------------
> I would think this "openReader" method would live inside Lucy/KS, and
> would in fact implement its own retry logic (to load the next snapshot
> and try again). I must be missing some part of the question here...
If the retry code lives inside of IndexReader, then the only way to get the
IndexReader to use e.g. a subclassed TermsDictReader is to subclass
IndexReader and override a factory method:
{code}
class MyIndexReader extends IndexReader {
TermsDictReader makeTermsDictReader() {
return (TermsDictReader) new MyTermsDictReader(invindex, snapshot);
}
}
InvIndex invindex = MySchema.open("/path/to/index");
IndexReader reader = (IndexReader) new MyIndexReader(invindex);
{code}
I was hoping to avoid forcing the user to subclass IndexReader, but I think
the need for retry logic during open() precludes that possibility.
> 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
> Fix For: 2.9
>
> Attachments: LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Robert Muir (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12781953#action_12781953 ]
Robert Muir commented on LUCENE-1458:
-------------------------------------
bq. I think that String.compareTo works correctly on UCA collation keys.
No, because UCA collation keys are bytes :)
You are right that byte comparison on these keys works though.
But if we change the sort order like this, various components are not looking at keys, instead they are looking at the term text themselves.
I guess what I am saying is that there is a lot of assumptions in lucene right now, (prefixquery was my example) that look at term text and assume it is sorted in binary order.
bq. It should be stock Lucene
as much as I agree with you that default UCA should be "stock lucene" (with the capability to use an alternate locale or even tailored collator), this creates some practical problems, as mentioned above.
also the practical problem that collation in the JDK is poop and we would want ICU for good performance...
> 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.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, LUCENE-1458_sortorder_bwcompat.patch, LUCENE-1458_termenum_bwcompat.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Mark Miller (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12778364#action_12778364 ]
Mark Miller commented on LUCENE-1458:
-------------------------------------
I've got a big merge coming - after a recent merge I noticed a bunch of things didn't merge at all - so I started looking back and saw a few things that didn't merge properly previously as well. So I'm working on a file by file line by line update that should be ready fairly soon.
> 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.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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Uwe Schindler (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12785314#action_12785314 ]
Uwe Schindler commented on LUCENE-1458:
---------------------------------------
bq. It'd be great if we could find a way to do this without a big hairball of back compat code
DocsEnum is a new class, why not fit it from the beginning as DocIdSetIterator? In my opinion, as pointed out above, the AttributeSource stuff should go in as a lazy-init member behind getAttributes() / attributes().
> 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-MTQ-BW.patch, LUCENE-1458-NRQ.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.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, LUCENE-1458_rotate.patch, LUCENE-1458_sortorder_bwcompat.patch, LUCENE-1458_termenum_bwcompat.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Robert Muir (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12781603#action_12781603 ]
Robert Muir commented on LUCENE-1458:
-------------------------------------
the patch and test are in revision 883485.
I added some javadocs to TermRef where it takes a String constructor as well.
> 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.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, LUCENE-1458_termenum_bwcompat.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Mark Miller (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12767073#action_12767073 ]
Mark Miller commented on LUCENE-1458:
-------------------------------------
bq. Are they causing OOMs with TestIndexReaderReopen? (I haven't tried yet).
Yes - they both def need polish too - I just got them working (passing all the tests), but havn't really finished them.
> 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.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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Uwe Schindler (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12784548#action_12784548 ]
Uwe Schindler commented on LUCENE-1458:
---------------------------------------
bq. I'll just remove that method.
In my opinion the super method should throw UOE. If somebody misses to override either getTermsEnum() or getEnum() he will get a good message describing the problem, not just an NPE. The default impl of getTermsEnum() to return null is fine, because rewrite then delegates to getEnum(). If that also returns null, you get NPE.
We had the same problem with Filter.bits() after deprecation in 2.x - it was not solved very good. In the 2.9 TS BW layer / DocIdSetIterator bw layer it was done correctly.
> 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-NRQ.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.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, LUCENE-1458_rotate.patch, LUCENE-1458_sortorder_bwcompat.patch, LUCENE-1458_termenum_bwcompat.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Michael McCandless (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12766339#action_12766339 ]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-1458:
--------------------------------------------
I just committed some small improvements to the ThreadLocal cache; all
tests pass at 512M heap limit again.
I think the reason why TestIndexReaderReopen was hitting the limit is
because its testThreadSafety test opens many (344) IndexReaders at
once, without closing them until the very end, and the standard codec
is now using more starting RAM per reader because 1) the terms index
uses a fixed minimal block size for the byte[], and 2) the new terms
info cache is less RAM efficient.
I've made some progress to "scale down" better:
* Don't create a 1024 sized cache when total # terms is less than
that
* Cache a single thread-private TermsEnum, to re-use for docFreq
lookups
* Reduced what's stored in each cache entry
* Made StandardDocsReader subclass CacheEntry to store its own
stuff; saves one extra object per entry.
> 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.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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Uwe Schindler (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12784536#action_12784536 ]
Uwe Schindler commented on LUCENE-1458:
---------------------------------------
I updated my commit comment above, so it's clear what I have done (copied from commit log message).
> 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-NRQ.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.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, LUCENE-1458_rotate.patch, LUCENE-1458_sortorder_bwcompat.patch, LUCENE-1458_termenum_bwcompat.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Michael McCandless (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12785305#action_12785305 ]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-1458:
--------------------------------------------
bq. Cool - was actually thinking about looking if you had done that yet last night (unrelatedly)
Feel free to fix it!
> 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-MTQ-BW.patch, LUCENE-1458-NRQ.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.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, LUCENE-1458_rotate.patch, LUCENE-1458_sortorder_bwcompat.patch, LUCENE-1458_termenum_bwcompat.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Updated: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Uwe Schindler (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]
Uwe Schindler updated LUCENE-1458:
----------------------------------
Attachment: LUCENE-1458-DocIdSetIterator.patch
Here the patch with refactoring DocsEnum.
With this patch MatchAllDocsQuery is very simple to implement now as a ConstantScoreQuery on top of a Filter that returns the DocsEnum of the supplied IndexReader as iterator. Really cool.
> 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-DocIdSetIterator.patch, LUCENE-1458-MTQ-BW.patch, LUCENE-1458-NRQ.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.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, LUCENE-1458_rotate.patch, LUCENE-1458_sortorder_bwcompat.patch, LUCENE-1458_termenum_bwcompat.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Updated: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Michael Busch (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]
Michael Busch updated LUCENE-1458:
----------------------------------
Attachment: LUCENE-1458.patch
I took Mike's latest patch and updated it to current trunk.
It applies cleanly and compiles fine.
Some test cases fail. The problem is in SegmentReader in termsIndexIsLoaded() and loadTermsIndex(). I'll take a look tomorrow, I need to understand the latest changes we made in the different IndexReaders better (and now it's getting quite late here...)
> 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.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Mark Miller (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12785312#action_12785312 ]
Mark Miller commented on LUCENE-1458:
-------------------------------------
RE: the terms cache
Should and still try and do the reuse stuff, or should we just drop it and use the cache as it is now? (eg reusing the object that is removed, if one is removed) Looks like that would be harder to get done now.
> 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-MTQ-BW.patch, LUCENE-1458-NRQ.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.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, LUCENE-1458_rotate.patch, LUCENE-1458_sortorder_bwcompat.patch, LUCENE-1458_termenum_bwcompat.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Issue Comment Edited: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards
flexible indexing
Posted by "Robert Muir (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12782015#action_12782015 ]
Robert Muir edited comment on LUCENE-1458 at 11/24/09 4:37 PM:
---------------------------------------------------------------
{quote}
So this is definitely a back compat problem. And, unfortunately, even
if we like the true codepoint sort order, it's not easy to switch to
in a back-compat manner because if we write new segments into an old
index, SegmentMerger will be in big trouble when it tries to merge two
segments that had sorted the terms differently.
{quote}
Mike, I think it goes well beyond this.
I think sort order is an exceptional low-level case that can trickle all the way up high into the application layer (including user perception itself), and create bugs.
Does a non-technical user in Hong Kong know how many code units each ideograph they enter are?
Should they care? They will just not understand if things are in different order.
I think we are stuck with UTF-16 without a huge effort, which would not be worth it in any case.
was (Author: rcmuir):
{quote}
So this is definitely a back compat problem. And, unfortunately, even
if we like the true codepoint sort order, it's not easy to switch to
in a back-compat manner because if we write new segments into an old
index, SegmentMerger will be in big trouble when it tries to merge two
segments that had sorted the terms differently.
{quote}
Mike, I think it goes well beyond this.
I think sort order is an exceptional low-level case that can trickle all the way up high into the application layer (including user perception itself), and create bugs.
Does a non-technical user in Hong Kong know how many codepoints each ideograph they enter are?
Should they care? They will just not understand if things are in different order.
I think we are stuck with UTF-16 without a huge effort, which would not be worth it in any case.
> 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.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, LUCENE-1458_sortorder_bwcompat.patch, LUCENE-1458_termenum_bwcompat.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Michael McCandless (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12781917#action_12781917 ]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-1458:
--------------------------------------------
bq. Mike, I guess I mean i'd prefer UCA order, which isn't just the order codepoints happened to randomly appear on charts, but is actually designed for sorting and ordering things
Ahh, gotchya. Well if we make the sort order pluggable, you could do that...
> 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.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, LUCENE-1458_sortorder_bwcompat.patch, LUCENE-1458_termenum_bwcompat.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Michael McCandless (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12781927#action_12781927 ]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-1458:
--------------------------------------------
Yes, this (customizing comparator for termrefs) would definitely be very advanced stuff... you'd have to create your own codec to do it. And we'd default to UTF16 sort order for back compat.
> 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.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, LUCENE-1458_sortorder_bwcompat.patch, LUCENE-1458_termenum_bwcompat.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Marvin Humphrey (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12650854#action_12650854 ]
Marvin Humphrey commented on LUCENE-1458:
-----------------------------------------
> I think, just like we are pushing for column-stride / FieldCache to be
> "per segment" instead of one big merged array, we should move in the
> same direction for searching?
Algorithmically speaking, it would definitely help this specific task, and
that's a BIG FAT PLUS. This, plus memory mapping and writing the DocID -> ord
map at index-time, allows us to totally eliminate the current cost of loading
sort caches at IndexReader startup. The question is, how easy is it to
refactor our search OO hierarchy to support it?
If our goal is minimal impact to the current model, we worry only about the
TopFieldDocs search() method. We can hack in per-segment bookending via doc
number to the hit collection routine, initializing the TopFieldDocCollector
each segment (either creating a new one or popping all the collected docs).
But does it make sense to be more aggressive? Should Searchers run hit
collection against individual segments? Should Scorers only be compiled
against single segments?
Maybe so. I implemented pruning (early termination) in KS, and it had to be
done per segment. This is because you have to sort the documents within a
segment according to the primary criteria you want to prune on (typically doc
boost). I've since ripped out that code because it was adding too much
complexity, but maybe there would have been less complexity if segments were
closer to the foreground.
> 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
> Fix For: 2.9
>
> Attachments: LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Mark Miller (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12762828#action_12762828 ]
Mark Miller commented on LUCENE-1458:
-------------------------------------
bq. Hey! I'm not so old But yeah I still cling to emacs.
can you say both of those things in the same breath? Just how long did it take to get that phd...
I'd look it up and guestimate your age, but I think MIT still has my ip blocked from back when I was applying to colleges. So I'm going with the "uses emacs" guestimate.
bq. Hey, I know people who still cling to vi!
vi is the only one I can half way use - I know 3 commands - edit mode, leave edit mode, and save. And every now and then I accidently delete a whole line. When I make a change that I don't want to save, I have to kill the power.
The patch is in a bit of an unpatchable state ;) I think I know what editor to blame...Pico!
Our old friend, the $id is messing up WildcardTermEnum - no problem, I can fix that...
But also, NumericUtils is unpatched, Codec is missing, along with most of the classes from the codecs packages! This looks like my work :)
My only conclusion is that your one of those guys that can write the whole program once without even running it - and then it works perfectly on the first go. Thats the only way I can explain those classes in the wrong package previously as well :) No bug hunting tonight :(
> 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.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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Michael McCandless (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12650961#action_12650961 ]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-1458:
--------------------------------------------
{quote}
OK, it makes sense to have the user access these capabilities via a single
handle at both index-time and search-time. However, for Lucy/KS, the handle
should definitely be specified via the Schema subclass rather than via
constructor argument.
"Codec" isn't really the right name for this, though. "IndexComponent",
maybe? Lucy would have three main index components by default:
LexiconComponent, PostingsComponent, StorageComponent.
{quote}
Well, maybe both? Ie, each of these IndexComponents could have many
different codecs to write/read the data to/from the index. So when I
implement PostingsComponent, when writing a segment I could choose my
own codec; when reading it, I retrieve the matching codec to decode
it.
Subclassing Schema seems like the right approach.
> 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
> Fix For: 2.9
>
> Attachments: LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: [jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by Michael McCandless <lu...@mikemccandless.com>.
Excellent, thanks!
Mike
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 5:32 PM, Mark Miller <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I've added missing enums classes, but everything else is looking good so
> far.
>
> Michael McCandless (JIRA) wrote:
>> [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12765234#action_12765234 ]
>>
>> Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-1458:
>> --------------------------------------------
>>
>> OK I think I've committed Mark's last patch onto this branch:
>>
>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene/java/branches/flex_1458
>>
>> and I also branched the 2.9 back-compat branch and committed the last back compat patch:
>>
>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene/java/branches/flex_1458_2_9_back_compat_tests
>>
>> Mark can you check it out & see if I missed anything?
>>
>>
>>> 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.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.
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> - Mark
>
> http://www.lucidimagination.com
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: [jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by Mark Miller <ma...@gmail.com>.
I've added missing enums classes, but everything else is looking good so
far.
Michael McCandless (JIRA) wrote:
> [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12765234#action_12765234 ]
>
> Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-1458:
> --------------------------------------------
>
> OK I think I've committed Mark's last patch onto this branch:
>
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene/java/branches/flex_1458
>
> and I also branched the 2.9 back-compat branch and committed the last back compat patch:
>
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene/java/branches/flex_1458_2_9_back_compat_tests
>
> Mark can you check it out & see if I missed anything?
>
>
>> 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.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.
>>
>
>
--
- Mark
http://www.lucidimagination.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Michael McCandless (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12765234#action_12765234 ]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-1458:
--------------------------------------------
OK I think I've committed Mark's last patch onto this branch:
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene/java/branches/flex_1458
and I also branched the 2.9 back-compat branch and committed the last back compat patch:
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene/java/branches/flex_1458_2_9_back_compat_tests
Mark can you check it out & see if I missed anything?
> 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.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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: [jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible indexing
Posted by Mike Klaas <mi...@gmail.com>.
On 19-Nov-08, at 5:12 AM, Michael McCandless (JIRA) wrote:
>
> How can the VM system possibly make good decisions about what to swap
> out? It can't know if a page is being used for terms dict index,
> terms dict, norms, stored fields, postings. LRU is not a good policy,
> because some pages (terms index) are far far more costly to miss than
> others.
A note on this discussion: we recently re-architected a large database-
y, lucene-y system to use mmap-based storage and are extremely pleased
with the performance. Sharing the buffers among processes is rather
cool, as Marvin mentions, as is the near-instantaneous startup.
-Mike
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Michael McCandless (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12649028#action_12649028 ]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-1458:
--------------------------------------------
{quote}
In KS and Lucy, at least, we're focused on optimizing for the use case of dedicated search clusters where each box has enough RAM to fit the entire index/shard - in which case we won't have to worry about the OS swapping out those pages.
I suspect that in many circumstances the term dictionary would be a hot file even if RAM were running short, but I don't think it's important to worry about maxing out performance on such systems - if the term dictionary isn't hot the posting list files are definitely not hot and search-time responsiveness is already compromised.
In other words...
* I trust the OS to do a decent enough job on underpowered systems.
* High-powered systems should strive to avoid swapping entirely. To aid in that endeavor, we minimize per-process RAM consumption by maximizing our use of mmap and treating the system IO cache backing buffers as interprocess shared memory.
{quote}
These are the two extremes, but, I think most common are all the apps
in between. Take a large Jira instance, where the app itself is also
consuming alot of RAM, doing alot of its own IO, etc., where perhaps
searching is done infrequently enough relative to other operations
that the OS may no longer think the pages you hit for the terms index
are hot enough to keep around.
bq. More on designing with modern virtual memory in mind at <http://varnish.projects.linpro.no/wiki/ArchitectNotes>.
This is a good read, but I find it overly trusting of VM.
How can the VM system possibly make good decisions about what to swap
out? It can't know if a page is being used for terms dict index,
terms dict, norms, stored fields, postings. LRU is not a good policy,
because some pages (terms index) are far far more costly to miss than
others.
>From Java we have even more ridiculous problems: sometimes the OS
swaps out garbage... and then massive swapping takes place when GC
runs, swapping back in the garbage only to then throw it away. Ugh!
I think we need to aim for *consistency*: a given search should not
suddenly take 10 seconds because the OS decided to swap out a few
critical structures (like the term index). Unfortunately we can't
really achieve that today, especially from Java.
I've seen my desktop OS (Mac OS X 10.5.5, based on FreeBSD) make
stupid VM decisions: if I run something that does a single-pass
through many GB of on-disk data (eg re-encoding a video), it then
swaps out the vast majority of my apps even though I have 6 GB RAM. I
hit tons (many seconds) of swapping just switching back to my mail
client. It's infuriating. I've seen Linux do the same thing, but at
least Linux let's you tune this behavior ("swappiness"); I had to
disable swapping entirely on my desktop.
Similarly, when a BG merge is burning through data, or say backup
kicks off and moves many GB, or the simple act of iterating through a
big postings list, the OS will gleefully evict my terms index or norms
in order to populate its IO cache with data it will need again for a
very long time.
I bet the VM system fails to show graceful degradation: if I don't
have enough RAM to hold my entire index, then walking through postings
lists will evict my terms index and norms, making all searches slower.
In the ideal world, an IndexReader would be told how much RAM to use.
It would spend that RAM wisely, eg first on the terms index, second on
norms, third maybe on select column-stride fields, etc. It would pin
these pages so the OS couldn't swap them out (can't do this from
java... though as a workaround we could use a silly thread). Or, if
the OS found itself tight on RAM, it would ask the app to free things
up instead of blindly picking pages to swap out, which does not happen
today.
>From Java we could try using WeakReference but I fear the
communication from the OS -> JRE is too weak. IE I'd want my
WeakReference cleared only when the OS is threatening to swap out my
data structure.
{quote}
> Plus during that binary search the IO system is loading whole pages into
> the IO cache, even though you'll only peak at the first few bytes of each.
I'd originally been thinking of mapping only the term dictionary index files. Those are pretty small, and the file itself occupies fewer bytes than the decompressed array of term/pointer pairs. Even better if you have several search app forks and they're all sharing the same memory mapped system IO buffer.
But hey, we can simplify even further! How about dispensing with the index file? We can just divide the main dictionary file into blocks and binary search on that.
{quote}
I'm not convinced this'll be a win in practice. You are now paying an
even higher overhead cost for each "check" of your binary search,
especially with something like pulsing which inlines more stuff into
the terms dict. I agree it's simpler, but I think that's trumped by
the performance hit.
In Lucene java, the concurrency model we are aiming for is a single
JVM sharing a single instance of IndexReader. I do agree, if fork()
is the basis of your concurrency model then sharing pages becomes
critical. However, modern OSs implement copy-on-write sharing of VM
pages after a fork, so that's another good path to sharing?
bq. Killing off the term dictionary index yields a nice improvement in code and file specification simplicity, and there's no performance penalty for our primary optimization target use case.
Have you tried any actual tests swapping these approaches in as your
terms index impl? Tests of fully hot and fully cold ends of the
spectrum would be interesting, but also tests where a big segment
merge or a backup is running in the background...
bq. That doesn't meet the design goals of bringing the cost of opening/warming an IndexReader down to near-zero and sharing backing buffers among multiple forks.
That's a nice goal. Our biggest cost in Lucene is warming the
FieldCache, used for sorting, function queries, etc. Column-stride
fields should go a ways towards improving this.
bq. It's also very complicated, which of course bothers me more than it bothers you. So I imagine we'll choose different paths.
I think if we make the pluggable API simple, and capture the
complexity inside each impl, such that it can be well tested in
isolation, it's acceptable.
bq. If we treat the term dictionary as a black box, it has to accept a term and return... a blob, I guess. Whatever calls the lookup needs to know how to handle that blob.
In my approach here, the blob is opaque to the terms dict reader: it
simply seeks to the right spot in the tis file, and then asks the
codec to decode the entry. TermsDictReader is entirely unaware of
what/how is stored there.
> 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
> Fix For: 2.9
>
> Attachments: LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Issue Comment Edited: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards
flexible indexing
Posted by "Mark Miller (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12762831#action_12762831 ]
Mark Miller edited comment on LUCENE-1458 at 10/6/09 6:34 PM:
--------------------------------------------------------------
nope - something else - looking through the patch I see the files I want - a second attempt at patching has gone over better.
A couple errors still, but stuff I think I can fix so that I can at least look over. False alarm. My patcher wonked out or something. I can resolve the few errors that popped up this time. Sweet.
*edit*
Just for reference - not sure what happened the first time - my patch preview looked the same both times (was only complaining about the $id), but completely failed on attempt one and worked on attempt two - the only issue now appears to be you have half switch deletedDocs to Bits from BitVector - but only have way, so its broken in a dozen places. Not sure what you are doing about size() and what not, so I'm just gonna read around.
*edit*
Yes - I found it - BitVector was supposed to implement Bits - which was in the patch ... this patch just did not want to apply. I guess it was right, but Eclipse just did not want it to take ...
was (Author: markrmiller@gmail.com):
nope - something else - looking through the patch I see the files I want - a second attempt at patching has gone over better.
A couple errors still, but stuff I think I can fix so that I can at least look over. False alarm. My patcher wonked out or something. I can resolve the few errors that popped up this time. Sweet.
*edit*
Just for reference - not sure what happened the first time - my patch preview looked the same both times (was only complaining about the $id), but completely failed on attempt one and worked on attempt two - the only issue now appears to be you have half switch deletedDocs to Bits from BitVector - but only have way, so its broken in a dozen places. Not sure what you are doing about size() and what not, so I'm just gonna read around.
> 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.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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Mark Miller (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12767068#action_12767068 ]
Mark Miller commented on LUCENE-1458:
-------------------------------------
Nice! Sep and Pulsing still need to be trimmed down though - or we consider their bloat acceptable (they still don't pass). Sep especially should be pretty trimable I think. Pulsing is more of an issue because of the Document caching...
> 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.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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Updated: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Robert Muir (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]
Robert Muir updated LUCENE-1458:
--------------------------------
Attachment: UnicodeTestCase.patch
test that passes on trunk, fails on branch.
> 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.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, UnicodeTestCase.patch
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "John Wang (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12759112#action_12759112 ]
John Wang commented on LUCENE-1458:
-----------------------------------
Just a FYI: Kamikaze was originally started as our sandbox for Lucene contributions until 2.4 is ready. (we needed the DocIdSet/Iterator abstraction that was migrated from Solr)
It has three components:
1) P4Delta
2) Logical boolean operations on DocIdSet/Iterators (I have created a jira ticket and a patch for Lucene awhile ago with performance numbers. It is significantly faster than DisjunctionScorer)
3) algorithm to determine which DocIdSet implementations to use given some parameters, e.g. miniD,maxid,id count etc. It learns and adjust from the application behavior if not all parameters are given.
So please feel free to incorporate anything you see if or move it to contrib.
> 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.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
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Michael McCandless (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12648971#action_12648971 ]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-1458:
--------------------------------------------
bq. So something like a B+Tree would probably work better.
I agree, btree is a better fit, though we don't need insertion & deletion operations since each segment is write once.
> 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
> Fix For: 2.9
>
> Attachments: LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Michael McCandless (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12648739#action_12648739 ]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-1458:
--------------------------------------------
bq. Can we design a format that allows us rely upon the operating system's virtual memory and avoid caching in process memory altogether?
Interesting! I've been wondering what you're up to over on KS, Marvin :)
I'm not sure it'll be a win in practice: I'm not sure I'd trust the
OS's IO cache to "make the right decisions" about what to cache. Plus
during that binary search the IO system is loading whole pages into
the IO cache, even though you'll only peak at the first few bytes of
each.
We could also explore something in-between, eg it'd be nice to
genericize MultiLevelSkipListWriter so that it could index arbitrary
files, then we could use that to index the terms dict. You could
choose to spend dedicated process RAM on the higher levels of the skip
tree, and then tentatively trust IO cache for the lower levels.
I'd like to eventually make the TermsDict index pluggable so one could
swap in different indexers like this (it's not now).
> 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
> Fix For: 2.9
>
> Attachments: LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Michael Busch (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12648839#action_12648839 ]
Michael Busch commented on LUCENE-1458:
---------------------------------------
{quote}
We could also explore something in-between, eg it'd be nice to
genericize MultiLevelSkipListWriter so that it could index arbitrary
files, then we could use that to index the terms dict.
{quote}
Hmm, +1 for generalizing the MultiLevelSkipListWriter/Reader so that we can re-use it for different (custom) posting-list formats easily.
However, I'm not so sure if it's the right approach for a dictionary. A skip list is optimized for skipping forward (as the name says), so excellent for positing lists, which are always read from "left to right".
However, in the term dictionary you do a binary search for the lookup term. So something like a B+Tree would probably work better. Then you can decide similar to the MultiLevelSkipListWriter how many of the upper levels you want to keep in memory and control memory consumption.
> 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
> Fix For: 2.9
>
> Attachments: LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Robert Muir (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12783489#action_12783489 ]
Robert Muir commented on LUCENE-1458:
-------------------------------------
Uwe you are right that the terms would be larger but they would have a more distinct alphabet (byte range) and might compare faster... I don't know which one is most important to NRQ really.
yeah I agree that encoding directly to byte[] is the way to go though, this would be nice for collation too...
> 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.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, LUCENE-1458_sortorder_bwcompat.patch, LUCENE-1458_termenum_bwcompat.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Michael McCandless (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12754887#action_12754887 ]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-1458:
--------------------------------------------
bq. Maybe a directed acyclic word graph would work well as an alternative dictionary implementation?
I think that'd be great. In particular, an FST (DAG that shares prefix & suffix and "outputs" the per-term data in the middle of the graph) should be a good savings in most normal term distributions.
Flexible indexing makes the terms dict & terms dict index pluggable, so we are free to experiment with alternative impls. I've only taken some baby steps to improve on the current terms dict index (by switching to shared byte[] blocks, instead of a separate TermInfo / String instance per indexed term).
> 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.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
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Michael McCandless (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12760031#action_12760031 ]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-1458:
--------------------------------------------
The codec is per segment. However, we ask the codec for
Terms/TermsEnum by fields, so it should be simple to make a Codec that
dispatches to field-specific Codecs.
> 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.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
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Uwe Schindler (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12784878#action_12784878 ]
Uwe Schindler commented on LUCENE-1458:
---------------------------------------
I can do this, but according to Mark, only with a new issue and patch... Just joking :-)
> 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-MTQ-BW.patch, LUCENE-1458-NRQ.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.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, LUCENE-1458_rotate.patch, LUCENE-1458_sortorder_bwcompat.patch, LUCENE-1458_termenum_bwcompat.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Mark Miller (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12766359#action_12766359 ]
Mark Miller commented on LUCENE-1458:
-------------------------------------
{code}
// nocommit -- not needed? we don't need to sync since
// only one thread works with this?
/*
@Override
public synchronized Object put(Object key, Object value) {
// TODO Auto-generated method stub
return super.put(key, value);
}
@Override
public synchronized Object get(Object key) {
// TODO Auto-generated method stub
return super.get(key);
}
*/
{code]
Whoops! I'm sorry! I wondered why I didn't have to replace all to get rid of that when I updated - I didn't mean to commit that! That was just part of my experimenting with the RAM blowout issue - was just making sure everything still worked without each thread having its own cache. That means the ThreadResources was out of whack too - I did have it as a member of the SegmentTermsEnum - I'm sorry - totally didn't mean to commit that!
> 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.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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Uwe Schindler (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12762600#action_12762600 ]
Uwe Schindler commented on LUCENE-1458:
---------------------------------------
Done. I also did it for the BW branch, but didn't create a tag yet. The next tag creation for the next bigger patch is enough (no need to do it now).
What I have done: svn copy from the older revision to the same path :-)
> 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.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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Michael McCandless (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12781401#action_12781401 ]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-1458:
--------------------------------------------
bq. perhaps it would help convince you if i instead wrote the code as .terms("𩬅".charAt(0));
I realize a java String can easily contain an unpaired surrogate (eg,
your test case) since it operates in code units not code points, but,
that's not valid unicode, right?
I mean you can't in general send such a string off to a library that
works w/ unicode (like Lucene) and expect the behavior to be well
defined. Yes, it's neat that Lucene allows that today, but I don't
see that it's "supposed to".
When we encounter an unpaired surrogate during indexing, we replace it
w/ the replacement char. Why shouldn't we do the same when
searching/reading the index?
What should we do during searching if the unpaired surrogate is inside
the string (not at the end)? Why should that be different?
bq. Please read Ch2 and 3 of the unicode standard if you want to do this.
Doesn't this apply here? In "3.2 Conformance"
(http://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode5.0.0/ch03.pdf) is this first
requirement (C1):
* A process shall not interpret a high-surrogate code point or a
low-surrogate code point as an abstract character.
bq. I hope you can start to see how many east asian applications will break because of this.
But how would a search application based on an east asian language
actually create such a term? In what situation would an unpaired
surrogate find its way down to TermEnum?
Eg when users enter searches, they enter whole unicode chars (code
points) at once (not code units / unpaired surrogates)? I realize an
app could programmatically construct eg a PrefixQuery that has an
unpaired surrogate... but couldn't they just as easily pair it up
before sending it to Lucene?
bq. i have applications that will break because of this.
OK, can you shed some more light on how/when your apps do this?
> 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.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, UnicodeTestCase.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Uwe Schindler (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12783475#action_12783475 ]
Uwe Schindler commented on LUCENE-1458:
---------------------------------------
Hi Mike,
I looked into your commit, looks good. You are right with your comment in NRQ, it will only work with UTF-8 or UTF-16. Ideally NRQ would simply not use string terms at all and work directly on the byte[], which should then be ordered in binary order.
Two things:
- The legacy NumericRangeTermEnum can be removed completely and the protected getEnum() should simply throw UOE. NRQ cannot be subclassed and nobody can call this method (maybe only classes in same package, but thats not supported). So the enum with the nocommit mark can be removed
- I changed the logic in the TermEnum in trunk and 3.0 (it no longer works recursive, see LUCENE-2087). We should change this here, too. This makes also the enum simplier (and it looks more like the Automaton one). The methods in trunk 3.0 setEnum() and endEnum() both throw now UOE.
I will look into these two changes tomorrow and change the code.
Uwe
> 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.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, LUCENE-1458_sortorder_bwcompat.patch, LUCENE-1458_termenum_bwcompat.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Michael McCandless (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12785377#action_12785377 ]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-1458:
--------------------------------------------
bq. There is no method in IndexReader that returns all docs?
Not yet (in flex API) -- we can add it? IndexReader.allDocs(Bits skipDocs)? Or we could make AllDocsEnum public? Hmm.
> 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-DocIdSetIterator.patch, LUCENE-1458-DocIdSetIterator.patch, LUCENE-1458-MTQ-BW.patch, LUCENE-1458-NRQ.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.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, LUCENE-1458_rotate.patch, LUCENE-1458_sortorder_bwcompat.patch, LUCENE-1458_termenum_bwcompat.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Michael McCandless (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12783494#action_12783494 ]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-1458:
--------------------------------------------
bq. The idea is to create an additional Attribute: BinaryTermAttribute that holds byte[]. If some tokenstream uses this attribute instead of TermAttribute, the indexer would choose to write the bytes directly to the index. NumericTokenStream could use this attribute and encode the numbers directly to byte[] with 8 bits/byte. - the new AttributeSource API was created just because of such customizations (not possible with Token).
This sounds like an interesting approach! We'd have to work out some details... eg you presumably can't mix char[] term and byte[] term in the same field.
> 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.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, LUCENE-1458_sortorder_bwcompat.patch, LUCENE-1458_termenum_bwcompat.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Marvin Humphrey (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12651015#action_12651015 ]
Marvin Humphrey commented on LUCENE-1458:
-----------------------------------------
> So eg you'd still need to coordinate so that the new searcher isn't
> used until warming finishes, right?
...
> I guess you could also do a system call to do the cat command,
> blocking cutover to the new searcher until it completes.
Warming is only needed once, at search service startup. The idea is to get
the whole index into the system IO cache.
Once all segment data is in the IO cache, we assume that it stays there,
because this is a beefy dedicated search box with more than enough RAM to fit
the entire index/shard.
Say that we add a new segment to the index, either by running an
index-writing process locally, or via rsync. (Assume for the purposes of
argument that the local indexing process doesn't require much RAM -- which
is true with KS -- and so won't have the side effect of nudging existing
segments out of IO cache.)
Now, say that our search service checks at the beginning of each request to
see if the index has been modified. If it has, it opens a new searcher from
scratch -- which takes almost no time, because we're memory mapping rather
than slurping.
{code}
while (newRequest()) {
if (indexHasBeenUpdated()) {
searcher = new IndexSearcher("/path/to/index");
}
...
}
{code}
After an abrupt cutover to the new searcher, we process the search request.
Is the new search sluggish in any way? No, because all the segments used
by the new searcher are "hot". Older segments are hot because they were
in use by the prior searcher, and the new segment is hot because it was
just written.
Therefore, we don't need to worry about managing cutover to a new searcher.
We can just discard the old one and replace it with the new one.
> 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
> Fix For: 2.9
>
> Attachments: LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Mark Miller (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12762842#action_12762842 ]
Mark Miller commented on LUCENE-1458:
-------------------------------------
Bah - all this huffing an puffing over the patch and I'm too sick to stay up late anyway.
Have you started benching at all? I'm seeing like a 40-50% drop in same reader search benches with standard, sep, and pulsing. Like 80% with intblock.
> 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.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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Mark Miller (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12765204#action_12765204 ]
Mark Miller commented on LUCENE-1458:
-------------------------------------
Looks pretty simple - the field is not getting set with LegacyFieldsEnum.
> 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.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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Michael McCandless (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12764079#action_12764079 ]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-1458:
--------------------------------------------
bq. on a cache hit, I'm still calling docs.readTerm(entry.freq, entry.isIndex)
Hmm... I think your cache might be one level too low? I think we want the cache to live in StandardTermsDictReader. Only the seek(TermRef) method interacts with the cache for now (until we maybe add ord as well).
So, seek first checks if that term is in cache, and if so pulls the opaque state and asks the docsReader to restore to that state. Else, it does the normal seek, but then if the exact term is found, it calls docsReader.captureState and stores it in the cache.
Make sure the cache lives high enough to be shared by different TermsEnum instances. I think it should probably live in StandardTermsDictReader.FieldReader. There is one instance of that per field.
> 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.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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Uwe Schindler (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12783491#action_12783491 ]
Uwe Schindler commented on LUCENE-1458:
---------------------------------------
bq. Uwe you are right that the terms would be larger but they would have a more distinct alphabet (byte range) and might compare faster... I don't know which one is most important to NRQ really.
The new TermsEnum directly compares the byte[] arrays. Why should they compare faster when encoded by IndexableBinaryStringTools? Less bytes are faster to compare (it's one CPU instruction if optimized a very native x86/x64 loop). It may be faster if we need to decode to char[] but thats not the case (in flex branch).
> 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.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, LUCENE-1458_sortorder_bwcompat.patch, LUCENE-1458_termenum_bwcompat.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Uwe Schindler (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12784510#action_12784510 ]
Uwe Schindler commented on LUCENE-1458:
---------------------------------------
It is not a break: you cannot extend NumericRangeQuery (it's final), so you can never call that method (protected). Only if you pout your class into the same package, but that's illegal and not backed by bw compatibility.
(I explained that in the commit and Mike already wrote that in the comment). So please keep the code clean and do not readd this TE.
> 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-NRQ.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.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, LUCENE-1458_rotate.patch, LUCENE-1458_sortorder_bwcompat.patch, LUCENE-1458_termenum_bwcompat.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Updated: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Robert Muir (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]
Robert Muir updated LUCENE-1458:
--------------------------------
Attachment: LUCENE-1458_rotate.patch
fwiw here is a patch to use the algorithm from the unicode std for utf8 in utf16 sort order.
they claim it is fast because there is no conditional branching... who knows
> 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.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, LUCENE-1458_rotate.patch, LUCENE-1458_sortorder_bwcompat.patch, LUCENE-1458_termenum_bwcompat.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Uwe Schindler (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12783482#action_12783482 ]
Uwe Schindler commented on LUCENE-1458:
---------------------------------------
Robert: I know, because of that I said it works with UTF-8/UTF-16 comparator. It would *not* work with a reverse comparator as Mike uses in the test.
With directly on bytes[] I meant that it could not use chars at all and directly encode the numbers into byte[] with the full 8 bits per byte. The resulting byte[] would be never UTF-8, but if the new TermRef API would be able to handle this and also the TokenStreams, it would be fine. Only the terms format would change.
> 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.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, LUCENE-1458_sortorder_bwcompat.patch, LUCENE-1458_termenum_bwcompat.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Updated: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Michael McCandless (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]
Michael McCandless updated LUCENE-1458:
---------------------------------------
Attachment: LUCENE-1458-back-compat.patch
LUCENE-1458.tar.bz2
Attached patch. This includes the pfor impl from LUCENE-1410.
PforDelta is working! I added another codec (pfordelta). It uses the
sep codec to separately store freq, doc, pos, and then uses PforDelta
to encode the ints (as fixed-size blocks).
However, there are a couple test failures
(TestIndexWriter.testNegativePositions,
TestPositionIncrement.testPayloadsPos0) due to PforDelta not properly
encoding -1 (it's returned as 255). Lucene normally doesn't write
negative ints, except for the special case of a 0 position increment
in the initial token(s), in which case due to the bug in LUCENE-1542
we write a -1 if you've called IndexWriter.setAllowMinus1Position.
However, that's deprecated and will be removed shortly at which point
the pfordelta codec will pass all tests.
> 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.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
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Assigned: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Michael Busch (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]
Michael Busch reassigned LUCENE-1458:
-------------------------------------
Assignee: Michael Busch (was: Michael McCandless)
> 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 Busch
> Priority: Minor
> Attachments: LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Updated: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Michael McCandless (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]
Michael McCandless updated LUCENE-1458:
---------------------------------------
Attachment: LUCENE-1458.patch
OK I created another codec, SepCodec (for lack of a better name) that
stores doc & frq & skip in 3 separate files (vs 1 for Lucene today),
as well as positions & payloads in 2 separate files (vs 1 for Lucene
today).
The code is still messy -- lots of nocommits all over the place. I'm
still iterating.
Finally, this gets us one step closer to using PFOR! With this codec,
the .frq, .doc and .prx are now "pure" streams of ints.
This codec was more interesting because it adds new files to the file
format, which required fixing the various interesting places where we
assume which file extensions belong to a segment.
In this patch I also created a PostingCodec class, with the 3
subclasses (so far):
* DefaultCodec: new terms dict format, but same back-compatible
prx/frq format
* PulsingCodec: new terms dict format, but inlines rare terms into
terms dict
* SepCodec: new terms dict format, and splits doc/frq/skip into
3 separate files, and prox/payload into 2 separate files
By editing the PostingCodec.getCodec method you can switch all tests
to use each codec; all tests pass using each codec.
I built the 1M Wikipedia index, using SepCodec. Here's the ls -l:
{code}
-rw-rw-rw- 1 mike admin 4000004 Nov 20 17:16 _0.fdt
-rw-rw-rw- 1 mike admin 8000004 Nov 20 17:16 _0.fdx
-rw-rw-rw- 1 mike admin 303526787 Nov 20 17:34 _n.doc
-rw-rw-rw- 1 mike admin 33 Nov 20 17:30 _n.fnm
-rw-rw-rw- 1 mike admin 220470670 Nov 20 17:34 _n.frq
-rw-rw-rw- 1 mike admin 3000004 Nov 20 17:34 _n.nrm
-rw-rw-rw- 1 mike admin 651670377 Nov 20 17:34 _n.prx
-rw-rw-rw- 1 mike admin 0 Nov 20 17:30 _n.pyl
-rw-rw-rw- 1 mike admin 84963104 Nov 20 17:34 _n.skp
-rw-rw-rw- 1 mike admin 666999 Nov 20 17:34 _n.tii
-rw-rw-rw- 1 mike admin 87551274 Nov 20 17:34 _n.tis
-rw-rw-rw- 1 mike admin 20 Nov 20 17:34 segments.gen
-rw-rw-rw- 1 mike admin 64 Nov 20 17:34 segments_2
{code}
Some initial observations for SepCodec:
* Merging/optimizing was noticeably slower... I think there's some
pending inefficiency in my changes, but it could also simply be
that having to step through 3 (.frq, .doc, .prx) files instead of
2 (.frq, .prx) for each segment is that much more costly. (With
payloads it'd be 4 files instead of 2).
* Net index size is quite a bit larger (1300 MB vs 1139 MB), I think
because we are not efficiently encoding the frq=1 case anymore.
PFOR should fix that.
* Skip data is just about as large as the terms dict, which
surprises me (I had intuitively expected it to be smaller I
guess).
> 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
> Fix For: 2.9
>
> Attachments: LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Michael McCandless (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12650542#action_12650542 ]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-1458:
--------------------------------------------
{quote}
How do you plan on dealing with the ord values changing as segments get
added? The addition of a single document triggers the rewriting of the
entire mapping.
...
Unfortunately, that won't work because segment boundaries are hidden from
Scorers.
{quote}
This is a big challenge -- presenting a merged docID->ord map for a
MultiSegmentReader is very costly.
I think, just like we are pushing for column-stride / FieldCache to be
"per segment" instead of one big merged array, we should move in the
same direction for searching?
Ie, if one did all searching with MultiSearcher, it should work well.
Each segment uses its pre-computed (during indexing) docID->ord
mapping. Merge-sorting the results from each searcher ought to be low
cost since you only need to lookup the string values for the top N
docs (though care must be taken to not incur N seeks for this... eg
perhaps each reader, on hitting a doc that makes it into the pqueue,
should then seek&load the String value from column-stride store?). An
optimized index wouldn't need to read any of the actual string values
since no results merging is needed.
For the RangeFilter impl in LUCENE-1461 (which'd use the docID->order
per segment, using MultiSearcher), string values are never needed.
{quote}
> Does this mean using per-field custom sort ordering (collator) is
> straightforward for KS?
That's one objective. The implementation is incomplete.
Another objective is to allow non-string term types, e.g. TimeStamp,
Float... Hmm... how about FixedWidthText?
{quote}
Neat!
> 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
> Fix For: 2.9
>
> Attachments: LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Michael McCandless (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12766922#action_12766922 ]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-1458:
--------------------------------------------
bq. you tweaked a couple little things with the standard cache capture state
Actually I think I just moved things around? EG I made it the StandardTermsDictReader's job to seek the termsIn file, I moved docCount "up", and I made a single cache entry. I think I also removed a few attrs that we didn't need to store... and downgraded skipOffset from long -> int (it's int on trunk).
> 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.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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Issue Comment Edited: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards
flexible indexing
Posted by "Robert Muir (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12781287#action_12781287 ]
Robert Muir edited comment on LUCENE-1458 at 4/23/10 9:40 AM:
--------------------------------------------------------------
edit: change supp char to <suppl. char> so erik can index this one too :)
Mike, this change to byte[] in TermRef will break backwards compatibility, without some special attention paid to the utf-16 to utf-8 conversion.
imagine FuzzyQuery on a string starting with <suppl. char>, prefix of 1.
this will create a prefix of U+D866, which is an unpaired lead surrogate.
This is perfectly ok though, because we are not going to write it to UTF-8 form, it is just being used as an intermediary processing.
before, this would work just fine, because everything was an internal unicode string, so startsWith() would work just fine.
now it will no longer work, because it must be downconverted to UTF-8 byte[].
Whether you use getBytes() or UnicodeUtil, it will be replaced by U+FFFD, and the same code will not work.
the standard provides that this kind of processing is ok for internal unicode strings, see CH3 D89.
was (Author: rcmuir):
Mike, this change to byte[] in TermRef will break backwards compatibility, without some special attention paid to the utf-16 to utf-8 conversion.
imagine FuzzyQuery on a string starting with 𩬅, prefix of 1.
this will create a prefix of U+D866, which is an unpaired lead surrogate.
This is perfectly ok though, because we are not going to write it to UTF-8 form, it is just being used as an intermediary processing.
before, this would work just fine, because everything was an internal unicode string, so startsWith() would work just fine.
now it will no longer work, because it must be downconverted to UTF-8 byte[].
Whether you use getBytes() or UnicodeUtil, it will be replaced by U+FFFD, and the same code will not work.
the standard provides that this kind of processing is ok for internal unicode strings, see CH3 D89.
> 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: Flex Branch
> Reporter: Michael McCandless
> Assignee: Michael McCandless
> Priority: Minor
> Fix For: Flex Branch, 3.1
>
> 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-DocIdSetIterator.patch, LUCENE-1458-DocIdSetIterator.patch, LUCENE-1458-MTQ-BW.patch, LUCENE-1458-NRQ.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.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, LUCENE-1458_rotate.patch, LUCENE-1458_sortorder_bwcompat.patch, LUCENE-1458_termenum_bwcompat.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch
>
>
> 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.
--
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: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Michael McCandless (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12742444#action_12742444 ]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-1458:
--------------------------------------------
Thanks for modernizing the patch Michael! I'll get back to this one soon... I'd really love to get PForDelta working as a codec. It's a great test case since it's block-based, ie, very different from the other codecs.
> 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.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Marvin Humphrey (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12650412#action_12650412 ]
Marvin Humphrey commented on LUCENE-1458:
-----------------------------------------
> Be careful: it's the seeking that kills you (until we switch to SSDs
> at which point perhaps most of this discussion is moot!). Even though
> the terms index net size is low, if re-heating the spots you touch
> incurs 20 separate page misses, you lose.
Perhaps for such situations, we can make it possible to create custom
HotLexiconReader or HotIndexReader subclasses that slurp term index files and
what-have-you into process memory. Implementation would be easy, since we can
just back the InStreams with malloc'd RAM buffers rather than memory mapped
system buffers.
Consider the tradeoffs. On the one hand, if we rely on memory mapped buffers,
busy systems may experience sluggish search after long lapses in a worst case
scenario. On the other hand, reading a bunch of stuff into process memory
makes IndexReader a lot heavier, with large indexes imposing consistently
sluggish startup and a large RAM footprint on each object.
> It seems like the ability to very quickly launch brand new searchers
> is/has become a strong design goal of Lucy/KS. What's the driver
> here? Is it for near-realtime search?
Near-realtime search is one of the motivations. But lightweight IndexReaders
are more convenient in all sorts of ways.
Elaborate pre-warming rituals are necessary with heavy IndexReaders whenever
indexes get modified underneath a persistent search service. This is
certainly a problem when you are trying to keep up with real-time insertions,
but it is also a problem with batch updates or optimization passes.
With lightweight IndexReaders, you can check whether the index has been
modified as requests come in, launch a new Searcher if it has, then deal with
the request after a negligible delay. You have to warm the system io caches
when the service starts up ("cat /path/to/index/* > /dev/null"), but after
that, there's no more need for background warming.
Lightweight IndexReaders can also be sprinkled liberally around source code in
a way that heavy IndexReaders cannot. For instance, each thread in a
multi-threaded server can have its own Searcher.
Launching cheap search processes is also important when writing tools akin to
the Unix command line 'locate' app. The first time you invoke locate it's
slow, but subsequent invocations are nice and quick. You can only mimic that
with a lightweight IndexReader.
And so on... The fact that segment data files are never modified once written
makes the Lucene/Lucy/KS file format design particularly well suited for
memory mapping and sharing via the system buffers. In addition to the reasons
cited above, intuition tells me that this is the right design decision and
that there will be other opportunities not yet anticipated. I don't see how Lucy
can deny such advantages to most users for the sake of those few for whom
term dictionary cache eviction proves to be a problem, especially when we can
offer those users a remedy.
> The biggest problem with the "load important stuff into RAM" approach,
> of course, is we can't actually pin VM pages from java, which means
> the OS will happily swap out my RAM anyway, at which point of course
> we should have used mmap.
We can't realistically pin pages from C, either, at least on Unixen. Modern
Unixen offer the mlock() command, but it has a crucial limitation -- you have to
run it as root.
Also, there aren't any madvise() flags that hint to the OS that the mapped
region should stay hot. The closest thing is MADV_WILLNEED, which
communicates "this will be needed soon" -- not "keep this around".
> 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
> Fix For: 2.9
>
> Attachments: LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Marvin Humphrey (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12648727#action_12648727 ]
Marvin Humphrey commented on LUCENE-1458:
-----------------------------------------
The work on streamlining the term dictionary is excellent, but perhaps we can do better still. Can we design a format that allows us rely upon the operating system's virtual memory and avoid caching in process memory altogether?
Say that we break up the index file into fixed-width blocks of 1024 bytes. Most blocks would start with a complete term/pointer pairing, though at the top of each block, we'd need a status byte indicating whether the block contains a continuation from the previous block in order to handle cases where term length exceeds the block size.
For Lucy/KinoSearch our plan would be to mmap() on the file, but accessing it as a stream would work, too. Seeking around the index term dictionary would involve seeking the stream to multiples of the block size and performing binary search, rather than performing binary search on an array of cached terms. There would be increased processor overhead; my guess is that since the second stage of a term dictionary seek -- scanning through the primary term dictionary -- involves comparatively more processor power than this, the increased costs would be acceptable.
Advantages:
* Multiple forks can all share the same system buffer, reducing per-process memory footprint.
* The cost to read in the index term dictionary during IndexReader startup drops to zero.
* The OS caches for the index term dictionaries can either be allowed to warm naturally, or can be nudged into virtual memory via e.g. "cat /path/to/index/*.tis > /dev/null".
> 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
> Fix For: 2.9
>
> Attachments: LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: [jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible indexing
Posted by Mark Miller <ma...@gmail.com>.
Merge away - still sleeping over here. Would love to look more again
but don't know when, so no use waiting on me.
- Mark
http://www.lucidimagination.com (mobile)
On Oct 6, 2009, at 5:54 AM, "Michael McCandless (JIRA)"
<ji...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12762573#action_12762573
> ]
>
> Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-1458:
> --------------------------------------------
>
> Whoa thanks for the sudden sprint Mark!
>
> bq. Come on old man, stop clinging to emacs
>
> Hey! I'm not so old :) But yeah I still cling to emacs. Hey, I know
> people who still cling to vi!
>
> {quote}
> I didn't really look at the code, but some stuff I noticed:
>
> java 6 in pfor Arrays.copy
>
> skiplist stuff in codecs still have package of index - not sure what
> is going on there - changed them
>
> in IndexWriter:
> + // Mark: read twice?
> segmentInfos.read(directory);
> + segmentInfos.read(directory, codecs);
> {quote}
>
> Excellent catches! All of these are not right.
>
> bq. (since you don't include contrib in the tar)
>
> Gak, sorry. I have a bunch of mods there, cutting over to flex API.
>
> bq. You left getEnum(IndexReader reader) in the MultiTerm queries,
> but no in PrefixQuery - just checkin'.
>
> Woops, for back compat I think we need to leave it in (it's a
> protected method), deprecated. I'll put it back if you haven't.
>
> bq. I guess TestBackwardsCompatibility.java has been removed from
> trunk or something? kept it here for now.
>
> Eek, it shouldn't be -- indeed it is. When did that happen? We
> should fix this (separately from this issue!).
>
> Do you have more fixes coming? If so, I'll let you sprint some
> more; else, I'll merge in, add contrib & back-compat branch, and
> post new patch! Thanks :)
>
>
>> 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.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.
>
> --
> 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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Michael McCandless (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12762573#action_12762573 ]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-1458:
--------------------------------------------
Whoa thanks for the sudden sprint Mark!
bq. Come on old man, stop clinging to emacs
Hey! I'm not so old :) But yeah I still cling to emacs. Hey, I know
people who still cling to vi!
{quote}
I didn't really look at the code, but some stuff I noticed:
java 6 in pfor Arrays.copy
skiplist stuff in codecs still have package of index - not sure what is going on there - changed them
in IndexWriter:
+ // Mark: read twice?
segmentInfos.read(directory);
+ segmentInfos.read(directory, codecs);
{quote}
Excellent catches! All of these are not right.
bq. (since you don't include contrib in the tar)
Gak, sorry. I have a bunch of mods there, cutting over to flex API.
bq. You left getEnum(IndexReader reader) in the MultiTerm queries, but no in PrefixQuery - just checkin'.
Woops, for back compat I think we need to leave it in (it's a
protected method), deprecated. I'll put it back if you haven't.
bq. I guess TestBackwardsCompatibility.java has been removed from trunk or something? kept it here for now.
Eek, it shouldn't be -- indeed it is. When did that happen? We
should fix this (separately from this issue!).
Do you have more fixes coming? If so, I'll let you sprint some more; else, I'll merge in, add contrib & back-compat branch, and post new patch! Thanks :)
> 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.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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Updated: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Michael McCandless (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]
Michael McCandless updated LUCENE-1458:
---------------------------------------
Attachment: LUCENE-1458.tar.bz2
LUCENE-1458-back-compat.patch
New patch & src.tar.bz2 attached. All tests, including back-compat, pass.
There are still zillions of nocommits to resolve.
Some of the changes:
- Got all tests to pass.
- Separated out a non-enum Fields/Terms API.
- Improved byte[] block allocation in the new terms index so that
the blocks are shared across fields (important when there are
zillions of fields each of which has few index terms)
- Changed TermsEnum.docs() API to accept a new bit set interface
(currently called Bits) skipDocs. This is towards eventual
support for random access filters. I also added Bits
IndexReader.getDeletedDocs().
Next step is to get the other codecs (sep, pulsing) to pass all tests,
then to make a pfor codec! I also need to perf test all of these
changes...
> 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.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch, 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Michael McCandless (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12774933#action_12774933 ]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-1458:
--------------------------------------------
bq. I'll write the flexible indexing stuff, and you start doing the hard tasks
Don't you just have to press one button in your IDE? ;)
bq. I still get OOM's on the reopen test every so often. Many times I don't, then sometimes I do.
Hmm... I'll try to dig. This is with the standard codec, or, eg pulsing or intblock?
> 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.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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Mark Miller (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12784904#action_12784904 ]
Mark Miller commented on LUCENE-1458:
-------------------------------------
bq. I can do this, but according to Mark, only with a new issue and patch... Just joking
I put it in the BW branch, but not the flex branch yet.
Yeah, I'm a hardass, but I'm not in charge - just giving my opinion :) And I like how most things are fairly loose - I just worry about going to far down a road it will be hard to come back from - usually its so easy to get consensus, its easy to ignore it - but I think thats dangerous.
And yes, I get that your just kidding, but for good reason - I don't mean to come off as the abrasive one, but sometimes I think someone has to, and since I'm already in that hole anyway ...
> 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-MTQ-BW.patch, LUCENE-1458-NRQ.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.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, LUCENE-1458_rotate.patch, LUCENE-1458_sortorder_bwcompat.patch, LUCENE-1458_termenum_bwcompat.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Issue Comment Edited: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards
flexible indexing
Posted by "Mark Miller (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12785312#action_12785312 ]
Mark Miller edited comment on LUCENE-1458 at 12/3/09 1:29 PM:
--------------------------------------------------------------
RE: the terms cache
Should we still try and do the reuse stuff, or should we just drop it and use the cache as it is now? (eg reusing the object that is removed, if one is removed) Looks like that would be harder to get done now.
was (Author: markrmiller@gmail.com):
RE: the terms cache
Should and still try and do the reuse stuff, or should we just drop it and use the cache as it is now? (eg reusing the object that is removed, if one is removed) Looks like that would be harder to get done now.
> 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-MTQ-BW.patch, LUCENE-1458-NRQ.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.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, LUCENE-1458_rotate.patch, LUCENE-1458_sortorder_bwcompat.patch, LUCENE-1458_termenum_bwcompat.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Michael McCandless (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12763984#action_12763984 ]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-1458:
--------------------------------------------
Actually, FIRST/LAST could be achieved with seek-by-ord (plus getUniqueTermCount()). Though that'd only work for TermsEnum impls that support ords.
> 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.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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Michael McCandless (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12774767#action_12774767 ]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-1458:
--------------------------------------------
Committed fixes addressing silly slowness. You also need LUCENE-2044 patch, until we sync up with trunk again, to run sortBench.py.
Part of the slowness was from MTQ queries incorrectly running the TermsEnum to exhaustion, instead of stopping when they hit their upperTerm. But, another part of the slowness was because sortBench.py was actually incorrectly testing flex branch against a trunk index. This is definitely something we have to test (it's what people will see when they use flex to search existing indexes -- flex API emulated on the current index format), so, we'll have to address that slowness as well, but for now I want to test pure flex (flex API on a flex index).
> 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.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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Issue Comment Edited: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards
flexible indexing
Posted by "Mark Miller (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12764050#action_12764050 ]
Mark Miller edited comment on LUCENE-1458 at 10/9/09 8:37 AM:
--------------------------------------------------------------
hmm - I think I'm close. Everything passes except for omitTermsTest, LazyProxTest, and for some odd reason the multi term tests. Getting close though.
My main concern at the moment is the state capturing. It seems I have to capture the state before readTerm in next() - but I might not use that state if there are multiple next calls before the hit. So thats a lot of wasted capturing. Have to deal with that somehow.
Doing things more correctly like this, the gain is much less significant. What really worries me is that my hack test was still slower than the old - and that skipped a bunch of necessary work, so its almost a better than best case here - I think you might need more gains elsewhere to get back up to speed.
*edit*
Hmm - still no equivalent of the cached enum for one I guess.
And at the least, since you only cache when the scan is great than one, you can at least skip one capture there...
was (Author: markrmiller@gmail.com):
hmm - I think I'm close. Everything passes except for omitTermsTest, LazyProxTest, and for some odd reason the multi term tests. Getting close though.
My main concern at the moment is the state capturing. It seems I have to capture the state before readTerm in next() - but I might not use that state if there are multiple next calls before the hit. So thats a lot of wasted capturing. Have to deal with that somehow.
Doing things more correctly like this, the gain is much less significant. What really worries me is that my hack test was still slower than the old - and that skipped a bunch of necessary work, so its almost a better than best case here - I think you might need more gains elsewhere to get back up to speed.
> 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.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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Michael McCandless (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12781582#action_12781582 ]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-1458:
--------------------------------------------
bq. if the term ends with a lead surrogate, tack on \uDC00 to emulate the old behavior.
OK I think this is a good approach, in the "emulate old on flex" layer, and then in the docs for TermRef call out that the incoming String cannot contain unpaired surrogates?
Can you commit this, along with your test? Thanks!
> 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.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, LUCENE-1458_termenum_bwcompat.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Michael Busch (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12764089#action_12764089 ]
Michael Busch commented on LUCENE-1458:
---------------------------------------
{quote}
Oh I didn't realize we call idf() twice per term
{quote}
Hmm I take that back. I looked in LUCENE-1195 again:
{quote}
Currently we have a bottleneck for multi-term queries: the dictionary lookup is being done
twice for each term. The first time in Similarity.idf(), where searcher.docFreq() is called.
The second time when the posting list is opened (TermDocs or TermPositions).
{quote}
Hmm something's wrong with my memory this morning! Maybe the lack of caffeine :)
> 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.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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Updated: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Mark Miller (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]
Mark Miller updated LUCENE-1458:
--------------------------------
Attachment: LUCENE-1458.patch
Latest to trunk - still issues with GC and the reopen thread safety test (unless the test is run in isolation).
Must be a tweak needed, but I'm not sure what. I'm closing the thread locals when the StandardTermsDictReader is closed - I don't see a way to improve on that yet.
> 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.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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Robert Muir (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12781874#action_12781874 ]
Robert Muir commented on LUCENE-1458:
-------------------------------------
{quote}
Though it would be nice to let the codec control the sort order - eg
then (I think?) the ICU/CollationKeyFilter workaround wouldn't be
needed.
{quote}
I like this idea by the way, "flexible sorting". although i like codepoint order better than code unit order, i hate binary order in general to be honest.
its nice we have 'indexable'/fast collation right now, but its maybe not what users expect either (binary keys encoded into text).
> 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.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, LUCENE-1458_sortorder_bwcompat.patch, LUCENE-1458_termenum_bwcompat.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Michael McCandless (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12763764#action_12763764 ]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-1458:
--------------------------------------------
bq. its hard to do this right with docsreader
I was thinking something along the lines of adding a "captureState" to DocsProducer.Reader, that returns an opaque object, and then adding a corresponding seek that accepts that object. It would chain to the positions reader.
Then StandardTermsDictReader would hold the thread private cache, using this API.
> 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.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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Uwe Schindler (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12762590#action_12762590 ]
Uwe Schindler commented on LUCENE-1458:
---------------------------------------
{quote}
bq. I guess TestBackwardsCompatibility.java has been removed from trunk or something? kept it here for now.
Eek, it shouldn't be - indeed it is. When did that happen? We
should fix this (separately from this issue!).
{quote}
My fault, I removed it during the remove backwards tests on Saturday. If we do not remove DateTools/DateField for 3.0 (we may need to leave it in for index compatibility), I will restore, these tests, too. It's easy with TortoiseSVN and you can also preserve the history (using svn:mergeinfo prop).
I have this on my list when going forward with removing the old TokenStream API.
> 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.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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Issue Comment Edited: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards
flexible indexing
Posted by "Uwe Schindler (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12785314#action_12785314 ]
Uwe Schindler edited comment on LUCENE-1458 at 12/3/09 1:36 PM:
----------------------------------------------------------------
bq. It'd be great if we could find a way to do this without a big hairball of back compat code
DocsEnum is a new class, why not fit it from the beginning as DocIdSetIterator? In my opinion, as pointed out above, the AttributeSource stuff should go in as a lazy-init member behind getAttributes() / attributes().
So I would define it as:
{code}
public abstract class DocsEnum extends DocIdSetIterator {
private AttributeSource atts = null;
public int freq()
public DontKnowClassName positions()
public final AttributeSource attributes() {
if (atts==null) atts=new AttributeSource();
return atts;
}
...default impl of the bulk access using the abstract methods from DocIdSetIterator
}
{code}
was (Author: thetaphi):
bq. It'd be great if we could find a way to do this without a big hairball of back compat code
DocsEnum is a new class, why not fit it from the beginning as DocIdSetIterator? In my opinion, as pointed out above, the AttributeSource stuff should go in as a lazy-init member behind getAttributes() / attributes().
So I would define it as:
{code}
public abstract class DocsEnum extends DocIdSetIterator {
private AttributeSource atts = null;
public int freq()
public DontKnowClassName positions()
public AttributeSource attributes() {
if (atts==null) atts=new AttributeSource();
return atts;
}
...default impl of the bulk access using the abstract methods from DocIdSetIterator
}
{code}
The same stra
> 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-MTQ-BW.patch, LUCENE-1458-NRQ.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.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, LUCENE-1458_rotate.patch, LUCENE-1458_sortorder_bwcompat.patch, LUCENE-1458_termenum_bwcompat.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Michael McCandless (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12766940#action_12766940 ]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-1458:
--------------------------------------------
Ahh, I just changed your seek to be a lazy seek, in case the caller won't use the positions; though I think setting skipPosCount=0 (which I also added) should have been necessary even with the non-lazy seek. Probably we could get the TestCodecs test to tickle that bug, if we get a DocsEnum, get PositionsEnum, read a few docs but NOT the positions, then seek to a term we had already seeked to (so it uses the cache) then try to read positions. The positions should be wrong because skipPosCount will carry over a non-zero value.
> 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.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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Mark Miller (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12763020#action_12763020 ]
Mark Miller commented on LUCENE-1458:
-------------------------------------
bq. Mark is there anything wrong w/ the patch? Did you get it working?
I got it working - it didn't apply cleanly, but perhaps that was just me. It was a weird situation - I get a preview of whats going to happen with complaints, and it only complained about the $id issue in wildcardtermenum - the half the patch failed. A second attempt and it only complained about that again - but then it missed making BitVector implement Bits - could just be ghosts in my machine. I wouldn't worry about it till someone else complains. In any case, I got it working in my case by just fixing the $id issue and adding implements Bits to BitVector.
> 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.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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Mark Miller (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12778548#action_12778548 ]
Mark Miller commented on LUCENE-1458:
-------------------------------------
Merged up - I've gotto say - that was a nasty one. I think things are more in sync then there were though.
> 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.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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "John Wang (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12762224#action_12762224 ]
John Wang commented on LUCENE-1458:
-----------------------------------
Hi Yonik:
These are indeed useful features. LUCENE-1922 addresses 1), perhaps, we can add 2) to the same issue to track?
Thanks
-John
> 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.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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Michael McCandless (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12781353#action_12781353 ]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-1458:
--------------------------------------------
bq. how do i seek to U+D866 in the term dictionary? I can do this with trunk...
But, that's an unpaired surrogate? Ie, not a valid unicode character?
It's nice that the current API let's you seek based on an unpaired
surrogate, but that's not valid use of the API, right?
I guess if we want we can assert that the incoming TermRef is actually valid
unicode...
> 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.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, UnicodeTestCase.patch
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Robert Muir (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12783654#action_12783654 ]
Robert Muir commented on LUCENE-1458:
-------------------------------------
bq. We could try to test to see if we see a difference in practice...
it is also very wierd to me that the method you are using is the one being used in ICU... if this one is faster why isnt ICU using it?
its also sketchy that the table as described in the unicode std doesn't even work anyway as described... so is anyone using it?
I like your reasoning, lets leave it alone for now... other things to work on that will surely help.
> 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.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, LUCENE-1458_rotate.patch, LUCENE-1458_sortorder_bwcompat.patch, LUCENE-1458_termenum_bwcompat.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Michael McCandless (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12785310#action_12785310 ]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-1458:
--------------------------------------------
bq. getAttributes() returning it and dynamically instantiating would be an idea. The same applies for TermsEnum, it should be separated for lazy init.
That's a good point (avoid cost of creating the AttributeSource) -- that makes complete sense.
> 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-MTQ-BW.patch, LUCENE-1458-NRQ.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.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, LUCENE-1458_rotate.patch, LUCENE-1458_sortorder_bwcompat.patch, LUCENE-1458_termenum_bwcompat.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Updated: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Michael McCandless (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]
Michael McCandless updated LUCENE-1458:
---------------------------------------
Attachment: LUCENE-1458.patch
> 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
> Fix For: 2.9
>
> Attachments: LUCENE-1458.patch
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Michael McCandless (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12762633#action_12762633 ]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-1458:
--------------------------------------------
bq. What I have done: svn copy from the older revision to the same path
Excellent, thanks! It had a few problems (was still trying to deprecated APIs, some of which were gone) -- I just committed fixes.
> 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.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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Marvin Humphrey (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12650316#action_12650316 ]
Marvin Humphrey commented on LUCENE-1458:
-----------------------------------------
> Nathan Kurz and I brainstormed this subject in a phone call this morning, and
> we came up with a three-file lexicon index design:
>
> I don't fully understand this approach. Would the index file pointers
> point into the full lexicon's packed utf8 file, or a separate "only
> terms in the index" packed utf8 file?
Just the index terms (i.e. every 128th term). We're trying to fake up an
array of strings without having to load anything into process memory. The
comparison would go something like this:
{code}
/* self->text_lengths, self->char_data, and self->lex_file_ptrs are all
* memory mapped buffers.
*/
while (hi >= lo) {
const i32_t mid = lo + ((hi - lo) / 2);
const i64_t offset = self->text_lengths[mid];
const i64_t mid_len = self->text_lengths[mid + 1] - offset;
char *const mid_text = self->char_data + offset;
const i32_t comparison = StrHelp_string_diff(target_text, target_len,
mid_text, mid_len);
if (comparison < 0) { hi = mid - 1; }
else if (comparison > 0) { lo = mid + 1; }
else {
result = mid;
break;
}
}
offset_into_main_lexicon = self->lex_file_ptrs[result]
...
{code}
However, perhaps some sort of a B-tree with string prefix compression would be
better, as per recent suggestions.
> 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
> Fix For: 2.9
>
> Attachments: LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Updated: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Michael McCandless (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]
Michael McCandless updated LUCENE-1458:
---------------------------------------
Attachment: LUCENE-1458-back-compat.patch
LUCENE-1458.tar.bz2
Attached patch.
All tests pass with all 3 codecs (standard = just like today's index format; pulsing = terms that occur in only 1 doc are inlined into terms dict; sep = separate files for doc, freq, prx, payload, skip data).
> 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.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
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Updated: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Michael McCandless (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]
Michael McCandless updated LUCENE-1458:
---------------------------------------
Attachment: LUCENE-1458-back-compat.patch
LUCENE-1458.tar.bz2
New patch attached. All tests pass.
I haven't quite made it to PForDelta yet, but it's very close!
The sep codec was the first step (uses separate files for doc, frq,
pos, payload, skip).
Then, in this patch, the big change was to create new
IntIndexInput/Output abstract classes, that only expose reading &
writing ints. I then fixed the sep codec to use this class for doc,
frq and pos files.
The trickiest part was abstracting away just what a "file pointer"
is. In Lucene we assume in many places this is the long file offset,
but I needed to change this to file-offset plus within-block-offset,
for int-block based files.
Once I did that, I created a FixedIntBlockIndexInput/Output, which
reads & writes the ints in blocks of a specified size. They are
abstract classes and require a subclass to do the actual encode/decode
of a given block. To test it I created a simple class that just
writes multiple vInts. All tests also pass with this newly added
("intblock") codec.
So the next step is to hook up PforDelta...
> 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.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
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Assigned: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Michael Busch (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]
Michael Busch reassigned LUCENE-1458:
-------------------------------------
Assignee: Michael McCandless (was: Michael Busch)
Oups, didn't want to steal this from you, Mike. Wanted to hit the "Watch" button instead...
> 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.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Mark Miller (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12784811#action_12784811 ]
Mark Miller commented on LUCENE-1458:
-------------------------------------
I've put the merge on hold for a bit - will try and come back to it tonight. Ive got to figure out why this BW compat test is failing, and haven't seen an obvious reason yet:
{code}
junit.framework.AssertionFailedError: expected:<> but was:<>
at org.apache.lucene.search.TestWildcard.testEmptyTerm(TestWildcard.java:108)
at org.apache.lucene.util.LuceneTestCase.runBare(LuceneTestCase.java:208)
{code}
Pipe in if you know. Hard to debug or run this test singular in Eclipse (because of how BW compat tests work), so its a slow slog to trouble shoot and I haven't had time yet.
> 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-MTQ-BW.patch, LUCENE-1458-NRQ.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.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, LUCENE-1458_rotate.patch, LUCENE-1458_sortorder_bwcompat.patch, LUCENE-1458_termenum_bwcompat.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Mark Miller (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12763097#action_12763097 ]
Mark Miller commented on LUCENE-1458:
-------------------------------------
bq. I haven't but it sounds like you have!
Nothing serious ;) Just began trying to understand the code a bit more, so started with playing around with the different Codecs. Which lead to just quickly trying out the micro bench with each of em.
> 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.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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Mark Miller (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12774849#action_12774849 ]
Mark Miller commented on LUCENE-1458:
-------------------------------------
I still get OOM's on the reopen test every so often. Many times I don't, then sometimes I do.
> 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.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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Uwe Schindler (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12785058#action_12785058 ]
Uwe Schindler commented on LUCENE-1458:
---------------------------------------
Mike: When fixing the NRQ test Mark merged, I found a problem/inconsistency with FilteredTermsEnum:
Normal usage of a termsEnum is that it is positioned on the first term (e.g. after calling getTermsEnum()). Normally you have a do-while-loop and call next() at the end, which is fine. Most code using TermsEnums first checks inside the do-while "if (term()==null)" and then break (incorrect positioned or exhausted termsenum). As the call to term() does not check the returned term, it may contain an term, that should normally be filtered. The same happens if you call term() after it is exhausted. The FilteredTermsEnum should return null for term() and docFreq() if the enum is empty or exhausted. I have seen that you added empty() to it, but for consistency the FilteredTermsEnum should return null/-1.
I fixed the test to check for empty() (sorry for two commits, the assertNull check was wrong, I changed before committing).
Opinions?
> 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-MTQ-BW.patch, LUCENE-1458-NRQ.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.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, LUCENE-1458_rotate.patch, LUCENE-1458_sortorder_bwcompat.patch, LUCENE-1458_termenum_bwcompat.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Michael Busch (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12749429#action_12749429 ]
Michael Busch commented on LUCENE-1458:
---------------------------------------
{quote}
The Codec is indeed index-wide, however, because the field vs term
text are strongly separated, it's completely within a Codec's control
to return a different reader/writer for different fields. So it ought
to work fine... eg one in theory could make a "PerFieldCodecWrapper".
But, I haven't yet tried this with any codecs. It would make a good
test case though... I'll write down to make a test case for this.
{quote}
OK I see now. Did you think about possibly extending the field API
to specify the codec? And then to store the Codec name in the
fieldinfos (which we'd want to make extensible too, as briefly
discussed in LUCENE-1597) instead of the dictionary?
> 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.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "John Wang (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12759110#action_12759110 ]
John Wang commented on LUCENE-1458:
-----------------------------------
Hi Mike:
We have been using Kamikaze in our social graph engine in addition to our search system. A person's network can be rather large, decompressing it in memory some network operation is not feasible for us, hence we made the requirement for the DocIdSetIterator to be able to walk to DocIdSet's P4Delta implementation in compressed form.
We do not decode the p4delta set and make a second pass for boolean set operations, we cannot afford it in both memory cost and latency. The P4Delta set adheres to the DocIdSet/Iterator api, and the And/Or/Not is performed on that level of abstraction using next() and skipTo methods.
-John
> 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.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
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Robert Muir (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12783499#action_12783499 ]
Robert Muir commented on LUCENE-1458:
-------------------------------------
bq. It would not compare faster because in UTF-8 encoding, only 7 bits are used for encoding the chars
yeah you are right I dont think it will be faster on average (i was just posing the question because i dont really know NRQ), and you will waste 4 bits by using the first bit at the minimum.
i am just always trying to improve collation too, so that's why I am bugging you. I guess hopefully soon we have byte[] and can do it properly, and speed up both.
> 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.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, LUCENE-1458_sortorder_bwcompat.patch, LUCENE-1458_termenum_bwcompat.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Michael Busch (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12648781#action_12648781 ]
Michael Busch commented on LUCENE-1458:
---------------------------------------
I'll look into this patch soon.
Just wanted to say: I'm really excited about the progress here, this is cool stuff!
Great job...
> 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
> Fix For: 2.9
>
> Attachments: LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Robert Muir (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12781624#action_12781624 ]
Robert Muir commented on LUCENE-1458:
-------------------------------------
Also, I am curious in general if we support any old index formats that might contain unpaired surrogates or \uFFFF in the term text.
This will be good to know when trying to fix unicode 4 issues, especially if we are doing things like compareTo() or startsWith() on the raw bytes.
> 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.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, LUCENE-1458_termenum_bwcompat.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Robert Muir (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12781420#action_12781420 ]
Robert Muir commented on LUCENE-1458:
-------------------------------------
{quote}
I realize a java String can easily contain an unpaired surrogate (eg,
your test case) since it operates in code units not code points, but,
that's not valid unicode, right?
{quote}
it is valid unicode. it is a valid "Unicode String". This is different than a Term stored in the index, which will be stored as UTF-8, and thus purports to be in a valid unicode encoding form.
However,
the conformance clauses do not prevent processes from operating on code
unit sequences that do not purport to be in a Unicode character encoding form.
For example, for performance reasons a low-level string operation may simply
operate directly on code units, without interpreting them as characters. See,
especially, the discussion under D89.
D89:
Unicode strings need not contain well-formed code unit sequences under all conditions.
This is equivalent to saying that a particular Unicode string need not be in a Unicode
encoding form.
• For example, it is perfectly reasonable to talk about an operation that takes the
two Unicode 16-bit strings, <004D D800> and <DF02 004D>, each of which
contains an ill-formed UTF-16 code unit sequence, and concatenates them to
form another Unicode string <004D D800 DF02 004D>, which contains a wellformed
UTF-16 code unit sequence. The first two Unicode strings are not in
UTF-16, but the resultant Unicode string is.
{quote}
But how would a search application based on an east asian language
actually create such a term? In what situation would an unpaired
surrogate find its way down to TermEnum?
{quote}
I gave an example already, where they use FuzzyQuery with say a prefix of one.
with the current code, even in the flex branch!!! this will create a lead surrogate prefix.
There is code in the lucene core that does things like this (which I plan to fix, and also try to preserve back compat!)
This makes it impossible to preserve back compat.
There is also probably a lot of non-lucene east asian code that does similar things.
For example, someone with data from Hong Kong almost certainly encounters suppl. characters, because
they are part of Big5-HKSCS. They may not be smart enough to know about this situation, i.e. they might take a string, substring(0, 1) and do a prefix query.
right now this will work!
This is part of the idea that for most operations (such as prefix), in java, supplementary characters work rather transparently.
If we do this, upgrading lucene to support for unicode 4.0 will be significantly more difficult.
bq. OK, can you shed some more light on how/when your apps do this?
Yes, see LUCENE-1606. This library uses UTF-16 intervals for transitions, which works fine because for its matching purposes, this is transparent.
So there is no need for it to be aware of suppl. characters. If we make this change, I will need to refactor/rewrite a lot of this code, most likely the underlying DFA library itself.
This is working in production for me, on chinese text outside of the BMP with lucene right now. With this change, it will no longer work, and the enumerator will most likely go into an infinite loop!
The main difference here is semantics, before IndexReader.terms() accepted as input any Unicode String. Now it would tighten that restriction to only any interchangeable UTF-8 string. Yet the input being used, will not be stored as UTF-8 anywhere, and most certainly will not be interchanged! The paper i sent on UTF-16 mentions problems like this, because its very reasonable and handy to use code units for processing, since suppl. characters are so rare.
> 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.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, UnicodeTestCase.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Uwe Schindler (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12785365#action_12785365 ]
Uwe Schindler commented on LUCENE-1458:
---------------------------------------
bq. Sweet! Wait, using AllDocsEnum you mean?
Yes, but this class is package private and unused! AllTermDocs is used by SegmentReader to support termDocs(null), but not AllDocsEnum. There is no method in IndexReader that returns all docs?
The matchAllDocs was just an example, there are more use cases.
> 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-DocIdSetIterator.patch, LUCENE-1458-DocIdSetIterator.patch, LUCENE-1458-MTQ-BW.patch, LUCENE-1458-NRQ.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.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, LUCENE-1458_rotate.patch, LUCENE-1458_sortorder_bwcompat.patch, LUCENE-1458_termenum_bwcompat.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Issue Comment Edited: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards
flexible indexing
Posted by "Robert Muir (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12783481#action_12783481 ]
Robert Muir edited comment on LUCENE-1458 at 11/29/09 9:33 PM:
---------------------------------------------------------------
bq. Ideally NRQ would simply not use string terms at all and work directly on the byte[], which should then be ordered in binary order.
but isn't this what it does already with the TermsEnum api? the TermRef itself is just byte[], and NRQ precomputes all the TermRef's it needs up front, there is no unicode conversion there.
edit: btw Uwe, and the comparator is be essentially just comparing bytes, the 0xee/0xef "shifting" should never take place with NRQ because those bytes will never be in a numeric field...
was (Author: rcmuir):
bq. Ideally NRQ would simply not use string terms at all and work directly on the byte[], which should then be ordered in binary order.
but isn't this what it does already with the TermsEnum api? the TermRef itself is just byte[], and NRQ precomputes all the TermRef's it needs up front, there is no unicode conversion there.
> 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.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, LUCENE-1458_sortorder_bwcompat.patch, LUCENE-1458_termenum_bwcompat.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Uwe Schindler (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12781938#action_12781938 ]
Uwe Schindler commented on LUCENE-1458:
---------------------------------------
...not to talk about TermRangeQueries and NumericRangeQueries. They rely on String.compareTo like the current terms dict.
> 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.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, LUCENE-1458_sortorder_bwcompat.patch, LUCENE-1458_termenum_bwcompat.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Michael Busch (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12749437#action_12749437 ]
Michael Busch commented on LUCENE-1458:
---------------------------------------
{quote}
EG even before FST for the index we should switch to blocks of
char[] instead of separate Strings, for indexText.
{quote}
I totally agree. I made a similar change (from String objects to
char[] blocks) on some other code (not Lucene) and the savings
in memory and garbage collection were tremendous!
> 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.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Grant Ingersoll (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12762406#action_12762406 ]
Grant Ingersoll commented on LUCENE-1458:
-----------------------------------------
I haven't followed too closely (even though it is one of my favorite issues) but I figured while Yonik was throwing out ideas, I'd add that one of the obvious use cases for flexible indexing is altering scoring. One of the common statistics one needs to implement some more advanced scoring approaches is the average document length. Is this patch far enough along that I could take a look at it and think about how one might do this?
> 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.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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Mark Miller (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12784563#action_12784563 ]
Mark Miller commented on LUCENE-1458:
-------------------------------------
Okay - thats sounds like a good idea - I'll leave it for after the merge is done though.
> 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-MTQ-BW.patch, LUCENE-1458-NRQ.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.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, LUCENE-1458_rotate.patch, LUCENE-1458_sortorder_bwcompat.patch, LUCENE-1458_termenum_bwcompat.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Marvin Humphrey (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12650377#action_12650377 ]
Marvin Humphrey commented on LUCENE-1458:
-----------------------------------------
>> Hmm, maybe we can conflate this with a column-stride field writer
>> and require that sort fields have a fixed width?
>
> Yes I think column-stride fields writer should write the docID -> ord
> part of StringIndex to disk, and MultiRangeQuery in LUCENE-1461 would
> then use it. With enumerated type of fields (far fewer unique terms
> than docs), bit packing will make them compact.
How do you plan on dealing with the ord values changing as segments get
added? The addition of a single document triggers the rewriting of the
entire mapping.
I was planning on having SortCacheWriter write the out the docID -> ord
mapping, but with the understanding that there was a relatively high cost so
the module couldn't be core. The idea was to take the cost of iterating over
the field caches during IndexReader startup, move that to index time, and write
out a file that could be memory mapped and shared among multiple search apps.
In theory, if we were to have only per-segment docID -> ord maps, we could
perform inter-segment collation the same way that it's handled at the
MultiSearcher level -- by comparing the original strings. It wouldn't be that
expensive in the grand scheme of things, because most of the work would be
done by comparing ord values within large segments.
Unfortunately, that won't work because segment boundaries are hidden from
Scorers.
>> In KS, the relevant IndexReader methods no longer take a Term
>> object. (In fact, there IS no Term object any more -
>> KinoSearch::Index::Term has been removed.) Instead, they take a
>> string field and a generic "Obj".
>
> But you must at least require these Obj's to know how to compareTo one
> another?
Yes.
> Does this mean using per-field custom sort ordering (collator) is
> straightforward for KS?
That's one objective. The implementation is incomplete.
Another objective is to allow non-string term types, e.g. TimeStamp,
Float... Hmm... how about FixedWidthText?
> 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
> Fix For: 2.9
>
> Attachments: LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Issue Comment Edited: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards
flexible indexing
Posted by "Mark Miller (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12785998#action_12785998 ]
Mark Miller edited comment on LUCENE-1458 at 12/4/09 4:59 PM:
--------------------------------------------------------------
Its not surprising - the merge command sucks from what I can tell :) Which is why I had to go line by line a merge or two ago to catch everything that had been dropped.
I expected I'd have to do it again, but its a lot of effort to do every time.
*edit*
by line by line, I mean I go through a diff of every file comparing trunk and the flex branch - I'll do it again soon.
was (Author: markrmiller@gmail.com):
Its not surprising - the merge command sucks from what I can tell :) Which is why I had to go line by line a merge or two ago to catch everything that had been dropped.
I expected I'd have to do it again, but its a lot of effort to do every time.
> 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: Flex Branch
> Reporter: Michael McCandless
> Assignee: Michael McCandless
> Priority: Minor
> Fix For: Flex Branch
>
> 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-DocIdSetIterator.patch, LUCENE-1458-DocIdSetIterator.patch, LUCENE-1458-MTQ-BW.patch, LUCENE-1458-NRQ.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.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, LUCENE-1458_rotate.patch, LUCENE-1458_sortorder_bwcompat.patch, LUCENE-1458_termenum_bwcompat.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Michael McCandless (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12650599#action_12650599 ]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-1458:
--------------------------------------------
{quote}
The equivalent to segments_N in KinoSearch is snapshot_N.meta, which is
encoded as JSON. There's a KinoSearch::Index::Snapshot class that's
responsible for reading/writing it.
KinoSearch::Schema is for defining your index: global field properties,
default Analyzer, etc. It's similar to Solr's schema.xml, but implemented as
an abstract class that users are required to subclass. Translated to Java,
the subclassing might look something like this:
{quote}
OK got it.
{quote}
What if index files get deleted out from under that code block? The
user will have to implement retry logic.
{quote}
I would think this "openReader" method would live inside Lucy/KS, and
would in fact implement its own retry logic (to load the next snapshot
and try again). I must be missing some part of the question here...
> 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
> Fix For: 2.9
>
> Attachments: LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Marvin Humphrey (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12650855#action_12650855 ]
Marvin Humphrey commented on LUCENE-1458:
-----------------------------------------
> Well ...that cat command can be deadly for a large index, too?
It will be costly for a large index, and it wouldn't be appropriate in all
cases. The use case I was thinking of was: dedicated server with gobs of RAM.
The index could either be updated often or not updated at all. Pre-existing
segments stay warm on such a box, and the writer would leave the latest
segment hot, so the cat command would only be needed once, at the startup of
the persistent service.
> 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
> Fix For: 2.9
>
> Attachments: LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Michael McCandless (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12784819#action_12784819 ]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-1458:
--------------------------------------------
And, thanks for taking over on merging trunk down! I'm especially looking forward to getting the faster unit tests (LUCENE-1844).
> 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-MTQ-BW.patch, LUCENE-1458-NRQ.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.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, LUCENE-1458_rotate.patch, LUCENE-1458_sortorder_bwcompat.patch, LUCENE-1458_termenum_bwcompat.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Michael McCandless (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12764085#action_12764085 ]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-1458:
--------------------------------------------
bq. Now we're adding the burden of implementing such a cache to every codec, right?
I suspect most codecs will reuse the StandardTermsDictReader, ie, they will usually only change the docs/positions/payloads format. So each codec will only have to implement capture/restoreState.
bq. Maybe instead we should improve the search runtime to not call idf() twice for every term?
Oh I didn't realize we call idf() twice per term -- we should separately just fix that. Where are we doing that?
(I thought the two calls were first for idf() and then 2nd when it's time to get the actual TermDocs/Positions to step through).
> 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.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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Issue Comment Edited: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards
flexible indexing
Posted by "Mark Miller (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12762831#action_12762831 ]
Mark Miller edited comment on LUCENE-1458 at 10/6/09 6:23 PM:
--------------------------------------------------------------
nope - something else - looking through the patch I see the files I want - a second attempt at patching has gone over better.
A couple errors still, but stuff I think I can fix so that I can at least look over. False alarm. My patcher wonked out or something. I can resolve the few errors that popped up this time. Sweet.
*edit*
Just for reference - not sure what happened the first time - my patch preview looked the same both times (was only complaining about the $id), but completely failed on attempt one and worked on attempt two - the only issue now appears to be you have half switch deletedDocs to Bits from BitVector - but only have way, so its broken in a dozen places. Not sure what you are doing about size() and what not, so I'm just gonna read around.
was (Author: markrmiller@gmail.com):
nope - something else - looking through the patch I see the files I want - a second attempt at patching has gone over better.
A couple errors still, but stuff I think I can fix so that I can at least look over. False alarm. My patcher wonked out or something. I can resolve the few errors that popped up this time. Sweet.
> 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.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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Michael McCandless (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12781677#action_12781677 ]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-1458:
--------------------------------------------
{quote}
the patch and test are in revision 883485.
I added some javadocs to TermRef where it takes a String constructor as well.
{quote}
Thanks Robert!
{quote}
Mike, what to do about MultiTermQueries now?
they still have some problems, especially with regards to doing 'startsWith' some constant prefix, which might be unpaired lead surrogate (lucene problem)
{quote}
Maybe open a new issue for this? Or, don't we already have an issue open to fix how various queries handle surrogates? Or I guess we could fix such queries to pair up the surrogate (add \uDC00)?
> 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.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, LUCENE-1458_termenum_bwcompat.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Issue Comment Edited: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards
flexible indexing
Posted by "Uwe Schindler (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12783584#action_12783584 ]
Uwe Schindler edited comment on LUCENE-1458 at 12/1/09 11:48 PM:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I rewrote the NumericRangeTermsEnum, see revision 885360.
Changed: Simplify and optimize NumericRangeTermEnum:
- the range split logic only seeks forward (an assert verifies this), so the iterator can be reused (like Automaton)
- removed the iteration by not using setEnum() [throws UOE], see LUCENE-2087
- removed TermEnum, as class cannot be subclassed - so no BW break!!!; getEnum() throws UOE.
- seek() cannot work for this TermsEnum, so throw UOE (is not needed for MTQ at the moment)
was (Author: thetaphi):
I rewrote the NumericRangeTermsEnum, see revision 885360.
> 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-NRQ.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.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, LUCENE-1458_rotate.patch, LUCENE-1458_sortorder_bwcompat.patch, LUCENE-1458_termenum_bwcompat.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Yonik Seeley (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12781636#action_12781636 ]
Yonik Seeley commented on LUCENE-1458:
--------------------------------------
In general, I think things like unpaired surrogates should be undefined, giving us more room to optimize.
> 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.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, LUCENE-1458_termenum_bwcompat.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Robert Muir (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12783493#action_12783493 ]
Robert Muir commented on LUCENE-1458:
-------------------------------------
bq. Why should they compare faster when encoded by IndexableBinaryStringTools?
because it compares from left to right, so even if the terms are 10x as long, if they differ 2x as quick its better?
I hear what you are saying about ASCII-only encoding, but if NRQ's model is always best, why do we have two separate "encode byte[] into char[]" models in lucene, one that NRQ is using, and one that collation is using!?
> 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.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, LUCENE-1458_sortorder_bwcompat.patch, LUCENE-1458_termenum_bwcompat.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Updated: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Michael Busch (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]
Michael Busch updated LUCENE-1458:
----------------------------------
Affects Version/s: (was: 2.9)
Flex Branch
Fix Version/s: Flex Branch
> 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: Flex Branch
> Reporter: Michael McCandless
> Assignee: Michael McCandless
> Priority: Minor
> Fix For: Flex Branch
>
> 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-DocIdSetIterator.patch, LUCENE-1458-DocIdSetIterator.patch, LUCENE-1458-MTQ-BW.patch, LUCENE-1458-NRQ.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.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, LUCENE-1458_rotate.patch, LUCENE-1458_sortorder_bwcompat.patch, LUCENE-1458_termenum_bwcompat.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Michael Busch (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12748538#action_12748538 ]
Michael Busch commented on LUCENE-1458:
---------------------------------------
{quote}
Switches to a new more efficient terms dict format.
{quote}
This is nice! Maybe we should break this whole issue into smaller pieces? We could start with the dictionary. The changes you made here are really cool already. We could further separate the actual TermsDictReader from the terms index with a clean API (I think you put actually a TODO comment into your patch). Then we can have different terms index implementations in the future, e.g. one that uses a tree. We could also make SegmentReader a bit cleaner: if opened just for merging it would not create a terms index reader at all; only if cloned for an external reader we would instantiate the terms index lazily. Currently this is done by setting the divisor to -1.
> 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.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Mark Miller (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12764073#action_12764073 ]
Mark Miller commented on LUCENE-1458:
-------------------------------------
Hmm - I must have something off then. I've never been into this stuff much before.
on a cache hit, I'm still calling docs.readTerm(entry.freq, entry.isIndex) - I'm just caching the freq, isIndex, and the positions with a CurrentState object. The captureCurrentState now telescopes down capturing the state of each object
Perhaps I'm off there - because if I do that, it seems I have to capture the state right before the call to readTerm in next() - otherwise readTerm will move everything forward before I can grab it when I actually put the state into the cache - when its FOUND.
I may be all wet though - no worries - I'm really just playing around trying to learn some of this - only way I learn to is to code.
bq. Hmm I wonder whether we should also cache the seek(ord) calls?
I was wondering about that, but hand't even got to thinking about it :)
> 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.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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Issue Comment Edited: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards
flexible indexing
Posted by "Uwe Schindler (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12785303#action_12785303 ]
Uwe Schindler edited comment on LUCENE-1458 at 12/3/09 1:24 PM:
----------------------------------------------------------------
One thing I came along long time ago, but now with a new API it get's interesting again:
DocsEnum should extend DocIdSetIterator, that would make it simplier to use and implement e.g. in MatchAllDocQuery.Scorer, FieldCacheRangeFilter and so on. You could e.g. write a filter for all documents that simply returns the docs enumeration from IndexReader.
So it should be an abstract class that extends DocIdSetIterator. It has the same methods, only some methods must be a little bit renamed. The problem is, because java does not support multiple inheritace, we cannot also extends attributesource :-( Would DocIdSetIterator be an interface it would work (this is one of the cases where interfaces for really simple patterns can be used, like iterators).
*EDIT*
Maybe an idea would be to provide a method asDocIdSetIterator(), if the multiple inheritance cannot be fixed. Or have the AttributeSource as a member field, which would be good, as it only needs to be created on first access then (because constructing an AttributeSource is costly). getAttributes() returning it and dynamically instantiating would be an idea. The same applies for TermsEnum, it should be separated for lazy init.
was (Author: thetaphi):
One thing I came along long time ago, but now with a new API it get's interesting again:
DocsEnum should extend DocIdSetIterator, that would make it simplier to use and implement e.g. in MatchAllDocQuery.Scorer, FieldCacheRangeFilter and so on. You could e.g. write a filter for all documents that simply returns the docs enumeration from IndexReader.
So it should be an abstract class that extends DocIdSetIterator. It has the same methods, only some methods must be a little bit renamed. The problem is, because java does not support multiple inheritace, we cannot also extends attributesource :-( Would DocIdSetIterator be an interface it would work (this is one of the cases where interfaces for really simple patterns can be used, like iterators).
> 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-MTQ-BW.patch, LUCENE-1458-NRQ.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.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, LUCENE-1458_rotate.patch, LUCENE-1458_sortorder_bwcompat.patch, LUCENE-1458_termenum_bwcompat.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Robert Muir (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12781289#action_12781289 ]
Robert Muir commented on LUCENE-1458:
-------------------------------------
here is a workaround you will not like.
in the impl for FuzzyTermsEnum etc, we must not use TermRef.startsWith in its current state due to this issue, if the prefix ends with unpaired surrogate.
in this case the String must be materialized each time from TermRef for comparison.
this is an example, where using byte[] will start to make things a bit complicated. It is not really a fault in TermRef, it is due to how the enums are currently implemented,
they will either need additional checks or we will need special unicode conversion so we can use things like TermRef.startsWith safely.
> 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.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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Mark Miller (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12784537#action_12784537 ]
Mark Miller commented on LUCENE-1458:
-------------------------------------
bq. Else, I will do tomorrow, I am tired, I would produce to many errors - sorry.
No problem - I got it now - just wasn't sure. Thats why I brought it up :)
bq. It's in the log message not comment.
Yup - thats fine, no big deal. Was just saying it would be easier on me if there was a comment over it - I've got it now though - I'll just remove that method.
> 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-NRQ.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.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, LUCENE-1458_rotate.patch, LUCENE-1458_sortorder_bwcompat.patch, LUCENE-1458_termenum_bwcompat.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Jason Rutherglen (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12754791#action_12754791 ]
Jason Rutherglen commented on LUCENE-1458:
------------------------------------------
Mike,
Maybe a directed acyclic word graph would work well as an alternative dictionary implementation?
> 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.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
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "John Wang (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12759116#action_12759116 ]
John Wang commented on LUCENE-1458:
-----------------------------------
Hi Uwe:
Thanks for the pointer to the isCacheable method. We will defn incorporate it.
-John
> 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.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
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Uwe Schindler (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12784823#action_12784823 ]
Uwe Schindler commented on LUCENE-1458:
---------------------------------------
I have seen your change in the tests, too. The test just checks that no clauses are generated. In my opinion, it should not compare to a empty BQ instance, instead just assert bq.clauses().size()==0.
> 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-MTQ-BW.patch, LUCENE-1458-NRQ.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.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, LUCENE-1458_rotate.patch, LUCENE-1458_sortorder_bwcompat.patch, LUCENE-1458_termenum_bwcompat.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Robert Muir (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12781589#action_12781589 ]
Robert Muir commented on LUCENE-1458:
-------------------------------------
bq. OK I think this is a good approach, in the "emulate old on flex" layer, and then in the docs for TermRef call out that the incoming String cannot contain unpaired surrogates?
Just so you know, its not perfect back compat though.
For perfect back compat I would have to iterate thru the string looking for unpaired surrogates.. at which point you truncate after, and tack on \uDC00 if its a high surrogate.
If its an unpaired low surrogate, I am not actually sure what the old API would do? My guess would be to replace with U+F000, but it depends how this was being handled before.
the joys of UTF-16 vs UTF-8 binary order...
I didnt do any of this, because in my opinion fixing just the "trailing lead surrogate" case is all we should worry about, especially since the lucene core itself does this.
I'll commit the patch and test, we can improve it in the future if you are worried about these corner-corner-corner cases, no problem.
> 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.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, LUCENE-1458_termenum_bwcompat.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Michael McCandless (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12781635#action_12781635 ]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-1458:
--------------------------------------------
LUCENE-510 (fixed in 2.4 release) cutover new indexes to UTF8.
Before 2.4, here's what IndexOutput.writeString looked like:
{code}
public void writeChars(String s, int start, int length)
throws IOException {
final int end = start + length;
for (int i = start; i < end; i++) {
final int code = (int)s.charAt(i);
if (code >= 0x01 && code <= 0x7F)
writeByte((byte)code);
else if (((code >= 0x80) && (code <= 0x7FF)) || code == 0) {
writeByte((byte)(0xC0 | (code >> 6)));
writeByte((byte)(0x80 | (code & 0x3F)));
} else {
writeByte((byte)(0xE0 | (code >>> 12)));
writeByte((byte)(0x80 | ((code >> 6) & 0x3F)));
writeByte((byte)(0x80 | (code & 0x3F)));
}
}
}
{code}
which I think can represent unpaired surrogates & \uFFFF just fine?
> 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.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, LUCENE-1458_termenum_bwcompat.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: [jira] Updated: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by Mark Miller <ma...@gmail.com>.
Michael McCandless (JIRA) wrote:
> [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]
>
> Michael McCandless updated LUCENE-1458:
> ---------------------------------------
>
> Attachment: LUCENE-1458.patch
>
> Uber-patch attached: started from Mark's patch (thanks!),
Anytime! Grunt work and I go together like Michael Bay and Uwe Boll.
Hope I can actually make a meaningful contribution to flexible indexing
at some point.
--
- Mark
http://www.lucidimagination.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Updated: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Michael McCandless (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]
Michael McCandless updated LUCENE-1458:
---------------------------------------
Attachment: LUCENE-1458.patch
Uber-patch attached: started from Mark's patch (thanks!), added my contrib & back-compat branch changes. All tests pass.
Also, I removed pfor from this issue. I'll attach the pfor codec to LUCENE-1410.
Note that I didn't use "svn move" in generating the patch, so that the patch can be applied cleanly. When it [finally] comes time to commit for real, I'll svn move so we preserve history.
> 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.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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Mark Miller (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12766562#action_12766562 ]
Mark Miller commented on LUCENE-1458:
-------------------------------------
just committed an initial stab at pulsing cache support - could prob use your love again ;)
Oddly, the reopen test passed no problem and this adds more to the cache - perhaps I was seeing a ghost last night ...
I'll know before too long.
> 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.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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Michael McCandless (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12783492#action_12783492 ]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-1458:
--------------------------------------------
bq. I changed the logic in the TermEnum in trunk and 3.0 (it no longer works recursive, see LUCENE-2087). We should change this here, too.
Mark has been periodically re-syncing changes down from trunk... we should probably just let this change come in through his process (else I think we cause more conflicts).
bq. The legacy NumericRangeTermEnum can be removed completely and the protected getEnum() should simply throw UOE. NRQ cannot be subclassed and nobody can call this method (maybe only classes in same package, but thats not supported). So the enum with the nocommit mark can be removed
Ahh excellent. Wanna commit that when you get a chance?
bq. Ideally NRQ would simply not use string terms at all and work directly on the byte[], which should then be ordered in binary order.
That'd be great!
bq. With directly on bytes[] I meant that it could not use chars at all and directly encode the numbers into byte[] with the full 8 bits per byte. The resulting byte[] would be never UTF-8, but if the new TermRef API would be able to handle this and also the TokenStreams, it would be fine. Only the terms format would change.
Right, this is a change in analysis -> DocumentsWriter -- somehow we have to allow a Token to carry a byte[] and that is directly indexes as the opaque term. At search time NRQ is all byte[] already (unlike other queries, which are new String()'ing for every term on the enum).
> 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.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, LUCENE-1458_sortorder_bwcompat.patch, LUCENE-1458_termenum_bwcompat.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Michael McCandless (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12763946#action_12763946 ]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-1458:
--------------------------------------------
No problem :) Please post the patch once you have it working! We'll need to implement captureState/seek for the other codes too. The pulsing case will be interesting since it's state will hold the actual postings for the low freq case.
BTW I think an interesting codec would be one that pre-loads postings into RAM, storing them uncompressed (eg docs/positions as simple int[]) or slightly compressed (stored as packed bits). This should be a massive performance win at the expense of sizable RAM consumption, ie it makes the same tradeoff as contrib/memory and contrib/instantiated.
> 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.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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Issue Comment Edited: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards
flexible indexing
Posted by "Uwe Schindler (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12785365#action_12785365 ]
Uwe Schindler edited comment on LUCENE-1458 at 12/3/09 3:53 PM:
----------------------------------------------------------------
bq. Sweet! Wait, using AllDocsEnum you mean?
Yes, but this class is package private and unused! AllTermDocs is used by SegmentReader to support termDocs(null), but not AllDocsEnum. There is no method in IndexReader that returns all docs?
The matchAllDocs was just an example, there are more use cases, e.g. a TermsFilter (that is the non-scoring TermQuery variant): Just use the DocsEnum of this term as the DicIdSetIterator.
was (Author: thetaphi):
bq. Sweet! Wait, using AllDocsEnum you mean?
Yes, but this class is package private and unused! AllTermDocs is used by SegmentReader to support termDocs(null), but not AllDocsEnum. There is no method in IndexReader that returns all docs?
The matchAllDocs was just an example, there are more use cases.
> 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-DocIdSetIterator.patch, LUCENE-1458-DocIdSetIterator.patch, LUCENE-1458-MTQ-BW.patch, LUCENE-1458-NRQ.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.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, LUCENE-1458_rotate.patch, LUCENE-1458_sortorder_bwcompat.patch, LUCENE-1458_termenum_bwcompat.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Issue Comment Edited: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards
flexible indexing
Posted by "Robert Muir (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12781289#action_12781289 ]
Robert Muir edited comment on LUCENE-1458 at 11/23/09 3:46 AM:
---------------------------------------------------------------
here is a workaround you will not like.
in the impl for FuzzyTermsEnum etc, we must not use TermRef.startsWith in its current state due to this issue, if the prefix ends with unpaired surrogate.
in this case the String must be materialized each time from TermRef for comparison.
this is an example, where using byte[] will start to make things a bit complicated. It is not really a fault in TermRef, it is due to how the enums are currently implemented,
they will either need additional checks or we will need special unicode conversion so we can use things like TermRef.startsWith safely.
edit: actually i do think now this is a fault in TermRef/TermsEnum api. how do i seek to U+D866 in the term dictionary? I can do this with trunk...
it is not possible with the flex branch, because you cannot represent this in UTF-8 byte[]
was (Author: rcmuir):
here is a workaround you will not like.
in the impl for FuzzyTermsEnum etc, we must not use TermRef.startsWith in its current state due to this issue, if the prefix ends with unpaired surrogate.
in this case the String must be materialized each time from TermRef for comparison.
this is an example, where using byte[] will start to make things a bit complicated. It is not really a fault in TermRef, it is due to how the enums are currently implemented,
they will either need additional checks or we will need special unicode conversion so we can use things like TermRef.startsWith safely.
> 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.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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Michael McCandless (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12650558#action_12650558 ]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-1458:
--------------------------------------------
{quote}
> Be careful: it's the seeking that kills you (until we switch to SSDs
> at which point perhaps most of this discussion is moot!). Even though
> the terms index net size is low, if re-heating the spots you touch
> incurs 20 separate page misses, you lose.
Perhaps for such situations, we can make it possible to create custom
HotLexiconReader or HotIndexReader subclasses that slurp term index files and
what-have-you into process memory. Implementation would be easy, since we can
just back the InStreams with malloc'd RAM buffers rather than memory mapped
system buffers.
Consider the tradeoffs. On the one hand, if we rely on memory mapped buffers,
busy systems may experience sluggish search after long lapses in a worst case
scenario. On the other hand, reading a bunch of stuff into process memory
makes IndexReader a lot heavier, with large indexes imposing consistently
sluggish startup and a large RAM footprint on each object.
{quote}
I think this is a fabulous solution. If you make things so pluggable
that you can choose to swap in "mmap this thing" vs "slurp in this
thing" and it's the same interface presented to the consumer, then, we
don't need to resolve this debate now ;) Put both out in the field and
gather data...
{quote}
Elaborate pre-warming rituals are necessary with heavy IndexReaders whenever
indexes get modified underneath a persistent search service. This is
certainly a problem when you are trying to keep up with real-time insertions,
but it is also a problem with batch updates or optimization passes.
With lightweight IndexReaders, you can check whether the index has been
modified as requests come in, launch a new Searcher if it has, then deal with
the request after a negligible delay. You have to warm the system io caches
when the service starts up ("cat /path/to/index/* > /dev/null"), but after
that, there's no more need for background warming.
{quote}
Well ...that cat command can be deadly for a large index, too? You've
replaced the elaborate pre-warming ritual (= run certain queries that
you know will populate variou caches) with a cat command that doesn't
distinguish what's important (norms, terms index, certain docID->ord
maps, certain column-stride-fields, etc.) from what's less important.
{quote}
Lightweight IndexReaders can also be sprinkled liberally around source code in
a way that heavy IndexReaders cannot. For instance, each thread in a
multi-threaded server can have its own Searcher.
Launching cheap search processes is also important when writing tools akin to
the Unix command line 'locate' app. The first time you invoke locate it's
slow, but subsequent invocations are nice and quick. You can only mimic that
with a lightweight IndexReader.
{quote}
This is indeed nice. I think the two approaches boil down to "pay up
front & reuse" (Lucene, slurping) vs "pay as you go & discard"
(KS/Lucy, mmap'ing).
{quote}
And so on... The fact that segment data files are never modified once written
makes the Lucene/Lucy/KS file format design particularly well suited for
memory mapping and sharing via the system buffers. In addition to the reasons
cited above, intuition tells me that this is the right design decision and
that there will be other opportunities not yet anticipated. I don't see how Lucy
can deny such advantages to most users for the sake of those few for whom
term dictionary cache eviction proves to be a problem, especially when we can
offer those users a remedy.
{quote}
[BTW the ZFS filesystem gets many of its nice properties for the same
reason -- "write once", at the file block level.]
Lucene java takes advantage of that 'write once' nature during
IndexReader.reopen(). If we can finally push FieldCache, norms,
docID->ord to be per-reader then the reopen of a MultiSearcher should
be alot better than it is today.
{quote}
> The biggest problem with the "load important stuff into RAM" approach,
> of course, is we can't actually pin VM pages from java, which means
> the OS will happily swap out my RAM anyway, at which point of course
> we should have used mmap.
We can't realistically pin pages from C, either, at least on Unixen. Modern
Unixen offer the mlock() command, but it has a crucial limitation - you have to
run it as root.
Also, there aren't any madvise() flags that hint to the OS that the mapped
region should stay hot. The closest thing is MADV_WILLNEED, which
communicates "this will be needed soon" - not "keep this around".
{quote}
Alas.
The only fallback is gross system-level tunings ("swappiness" on Linux
and "Adjust for best performance of: Programs/System Cache" on Windows
Server 2003, at least).
Or also a silly "keep warm" thread...
> 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
> Fix For: 2.9
>
> Attachments: LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Yonik Seeley (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12762292#action_12762292 ]
Yonik Seeley commented on LUCENE-1458:
--------------------------------------
bq. I agree this would be useful. I did have ord() in early iterations of the TermsEnum API, but it wasn't fully implemented and I stripped it when I switched to "just finish it already" mode
A "complete" implementation seems hard (i.e. across multiple segments also)... but it still seems useful even if it's only at the segment level. So perhaps just on SegmentTermEnum, and uses would have to cast to access?
Exposing the term index array (i.e. every 128th term) as an expert-subject-to-change warning would let people implement variants themselves at least.
bq. you'd also presumably need seek(int ord)
Yep.
> 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.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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Marvin Humphrey (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12650647#action_12650647 ]
Marvin Humphrey commented on LUCENE-1458:
-----------------------------------------
>> We're trying to fake up an array of strings without having to load anything
>> into process memory.
> We could do something similar in Lucene. Not creating String objects is
> nice.
OK, assume that you slurp all three files. Here's the code from above, ported
from C to Java.
{code}
while (hi >= lo) {
int mid = lo + ((hi - lo) / 2);
long midTextOffset = textLengths[mid];
long midTextLength = textLengths[mid + 1] - midTextOffset;
int comparison = StringHelper.compareUTF8Bytes(
targetUTF8Bytes, 0, targetLength,
termUTF8bytes, midTextOffset, midTextLength);
if (comparison < 0) { hi = mid - 1; }
else if (comparison > 0) { lo = mid + 1; }
else {
result = mid;
break;
}
}
long offsetIntoMainTermDict = mainTermDictFilePointers[result];
...
{code}
Other than the slurping, the only significant difference is the need for the
comparison routine to take a byte[] array and an offset, rather than a char*
pointer.
You can also use FileChannels to memory map this stuff, right? (Have to be
careful on 32-bit systems, though.)
> B-tree or FST/trie or ... something.
Much to my regret, my tree algorithm vocabulary is limited -- I haven't spent
enough time coding such projects that I can intuit sophisticated solutions.
So I'll be counting on you, Jason Rutherglen, and Eks Dev to suggest
appropriate algorithms based on your experience.
Our segment-based inverted index term dictionary has a few defining
characteristics.
First, a lot of tree algorithms are optimized to a greater or lesser extent
for insertion speed, but we hardly care about that at all. We can spend all
the cycles we need at index-time balancing nodes within a segment, and once
the tree is written out, it will never be updated.
Second, when we are writing out the term dictionary at index-time, the raw
data will be fed into the writer in sorted order as iterated values, one
term/term-info pair at a time. Ideally, the writer would be able to serialize
the tree structure during this single pass, but it could also write a
temporary file during the terms iteration then write a final file afterwards.
The main limitation is that the writer will never be able to "see" all
terms at once as an array.
Third, at read-time we're going to have one of these trees per segment. We'd
really like to be able to conflate them somehow. KinoSearch actually
implements a MultiLexicon class which keeps SegLexicons in a PriorityQueue;
MultiLexicon_Next() advances the queue to the next unique term. However,
that's slow, unwieldy, and inflexible. Can we do better?
> Actually: I just realized the terms index need not store all suffixes
> of the terms it stores. Only unique prefixes (ie a simple letter
> trie, not FST). Because, its goal is to simply find the spot in the
> main lexicon file to seek to and then scan from. This makes it even
> smaller!
It would be ideal if we could separate the keys from the values and put all
the keys in a single file.
> Though, if we want to do neat things like respelling, wildcard/prefix
> searching, etc., which reduce to graph-intersection problems, we would
> need the suffix and we would need the entire lexicon (not just every
> 128th index term) compiled into the FST.
The main purpose of breaking out a separate index structure is to avoid binary
searching over the large primary file. There's nothing special about the
extra file -- in fact, it's a drawback that it doesn't include all terms. If
we can jam all the data we need to binary search against into the front of the
file, but include the data for all terms in an infrequently-accessed tail, we
win.
> 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
> Fix For: 2.9
>
> Attachments: LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Marvin Humphrey (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12651138#action_12651138 ]
Marvin Humphrey commented on LUCENE-1458:
-----------------------------------------
> In Lucene we now have an indexing chain
> (package private), so that you can "tap in" at whatever point is
> appropriate - you could handle the whole doc yourself (like
> SegDataWriter); you could be fed one field at a time; you could tap in
> after inversion so you get one token at a time, etc.
That's pretty nice. It occurred to me to try something like that, but I got a
little lost.
The fact that the Doc object in KS uses the host language's native hashtable
and string implementations for field data complicates an already complicated
matter. It's hard to abstract out access to field data so that the KS/Lucy
core, which knows nothing about the host language, can see it, yet still
maintain peak performance in the addDoc() loop.
In any case, I don't anticipate intractable implementation troubles with
adding IndexComponents at index-time.
> IR.getReader seems fine, though, you'd need to open each
> IndexComponent up front inside the retry loop, right?
Sure, startup's easy. I think we just add Schema.auxiliaryComponents(),
which returns an array of IndexComponents. The default would be to return
null or an empty array, but subclasses could override it.
Where we have problems, though, is with remote searching or multi-searching.
You can't ask a Searchable for its inner IndexReader, because it might not
have one. That means that you can't "see" information pertaining to a custom
IndexComponent until you're at the level of the individual machine --
aggregate information, like docFreq across an entire collection spanning
multiple indexes, wouldn't be available to searches which use custom
components.
The only remedy would be to subclass all your Searchables -- the local
IndexSearcher, the RemoteSearchable that wraps it, and the MultiSearcher that
aggregates results -- to drill down into the correct IndexReader and pass data
back up the chain. Basically, you'd have to duplicate e.g. the call chain
that fetches documents.
> 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
> Fix For: 2.9
>
> Attachments: LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Mark Miller (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12764050#action_12764050 ]
Mark Miller commented on LUCENE-1458:
-------------------------------------
hmm - I think I'm close. Everything passes except for omitTermsTest, LazyProxTest, and for some odd reason the multi term tests. Getting close though.
My main concern at the moment is the state capturing. It seems I have to capture the state before readTerm in next() - but I might not use that state if there are multiple next calls before the hit. So thats a lot of wasted capturing. Have to deal with that somehow.
Doing things more correctly like this, the gain is much less significant. What really worries me is that my hack test was still slower than the old - and that skipped a bunch of necessary work, so its almost a better than best case here - I think you might need more gains elsewhere to get back up to speed.
> 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.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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Mark Miller (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12763771#action_12763771 ]
Mark Miller commented on LUCENE-1458:
-------------------------------------
Well thats reassuring - I think I was on the right path then. I've got the thread private cache, and I was initially just capturing in's position so I could set it before calling readTerm after pulling from the cache - so I knew I had an issue with the positions reader in there too (the position of it in readTerm) - but didn't see the cleanest path to set and capture that without modifying the reader like you said - but I wasn't even sure I was on the right path, so thats about where I gave up :)
Your comment makes me feel a little less dumb about it all though.
> 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.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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Robert Muir (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12783481#action_12783481 ]
Robert Muir commented on LUCENE-1458:
-------------------------------------
bq. Ideally NRQ would simply not use string terms at all and work directly on the byte[], which should then be ordered in binary order.
but isn't this what it does already with the TermsEnum api? the TermRef itself is just byte[], and NRQ precomputes all the TermRef's it needs up front, there is no unicode conversion there.
> 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.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, LUCENE-1458_sortorder_bwcompat.patch, LUCENE-1458_termenum_bwcompat.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Michael McCandless (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12780207#action_12780207 ]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-1458:
--------------------------------------------
I just committed a nice change on the flex branch: all term data in
DocumentsWriter's RAM buffer is now stored as UTF8 bytes. Previously
they were stored as char.
I think this is a good step forward:
* Single-byte UTF8 characters (ascii, including terms created by
NumericField) now take half the RAM, which should lead to faster
indexing (better RAM efficiency so less frequent flushing)
* I now use the 0xff byte marker to mark the end of the term, which
never appears in UTF-8; this should mean 0xffff is allowed again
(though we shouldn't advertise it)
* Merging & flushing should be a tad faster since the terms data now
remains as UTF8 the whole time
TermsConsumer now takes a TermRef (previously it took a char[] +
offset), which makes it nicely symmetic with TermsEnum.
Also I cleaned up the "nocommit not reads" -- thanks Mark!
> 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.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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: [jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by Chris Hostetter <ho...@fucit.org>.
: Could a git branch make things easier for mega-features like this?
why not just start a subversion branch?
:
: > 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.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch, 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.
:
: --
: 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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
: For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
:
-Hoss
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Yonik Seeley (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12754200#action_12754200 ]
Yonik Seeley commented on LUCENE-1458:
--------------------------------------
bq. Changed terms to be stored in RAM as byte[] (not char[]),
Yay! This will be important for NumericField too since it uses 7 bits per char and will probably account for the majority of terms in the index in many applications.
bq. I attached a .tar.bz2 of src/* with my current state - too hard to keep svn in sync / patchable right now.
Could a git branch make things easier for mega-features like this?
> 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.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch, 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Mark Miller (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12778393#action_12778393 ]
Mark Miller commented on LUCENE-1458:
-------------------------------------
Simply ? :) What about the part where I have to merge in the flexible indexing backward compat changes into the new branch after first figuring out what changes those are :) Okay, its not unsimple, but this backward branch stuff is my least favorite part.
> 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.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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "John Wang (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12758968#action_12758968 ]
John Wang commented on LUCENE-1458:
-----------------------------------
This is awesome!
Feel free to take code from Kamikaze for the p4delta stuff.
The impl in Kamikaze assumes no decompression at load time, e.g. the Docset can be traversed in compressed form.
> 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.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
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Issue Comment Edited: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards
flexible indexing
Posted by "Uwe Schindler (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12784510#action_12784510 ]
Uwe Schindler edited comment on LUCENE-1458 at 12/1/09 11:17 PM:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
It is not a break: you cannot extend NumericRangeQuery (it's final), so you can never call that method (protected). Only if you put your class that may call this method into the same package, but that's illegal and not backed by bw compatibility (The BW test is exactly such a case, just comment it out in BW branch - I added this test for explicit enum testing, we should have this in flex trunk, too).
(I explained that in the commit and Mike already wrote that in the comment). So please keep the code clean and do not re-add this TE.
was (Author: thetaphi):
It is not a break: you cannot extend NumericRangeQuery (it's final), so you can never call that method (protected). Only if you pout your class into the same package, but that's illegal and not backed by bw compatibility.
(I explained that in the commit and Mike already wrote that in the comment). So please keep the code clean and do not readd this TE.
> 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-NRQ.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.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, LUCENE-1458_rotate.patch, LUCENE-1458_sortorder_bwcompat.patch, LUCENE-1458_termenum_bwcompat.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Michael McCandless (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12762592#action_12762592 ]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-1458:
--------------------------------------------
bq. It's easy with TortoiseSVN and you can also preserve the history (using svn:mergeinfo prop).
Ahh -- can you do this for TestBackwardsCompatibility? I restored it, but, lost all history. Thanks.
> 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.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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Mark Miller (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12766913#action_12766913 ]
Mark Miller commented on LUCENE-1458:
-------------------------------------
Hey Mike: you tweaked a couple little things with the standard cache capture state (showing that I'm a cheater and getting stuff to work that I haven't yet fully understood ;) My specialty ) - what worries me is that they look like important little pieces if they are correct, but all tests passed without them. Hopefully we can get some tests in that catch these little off bys.
> 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.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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Mark Miller (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12765149#action_12765149 ]
Mark Miller commented on LUCENE-1458:
-------------------------------------
Whoops - double check the wrong index splitter test - the multi pass one is throwing a null pointer exception for me - don't think its related to this patch, but I havn't checked.
> 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.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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Updated: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Uwe Schindler (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]
Uwe Schindler updated LUCENE-1458:
----------------------------------
Attachment: LUCENE-1458-DocIdSetIterator.patch
Updated patch:
I did a search on "AttributeSource" in index package. I now also replaced the "extends AttributeSource" by a lazy init in in FieldsEnum and PositionsEnum. So all enums have an attributes() method that lazy inits an AttributeSource. When attributes get interesting a custom DocsEnum could just use attributes().addAttribute(XYZ.class) in its ctor and store the reference locally. attributes() is final (to be safe, when called by ctor).
Eventually add an Interface AttributeAble *g* that is implemented by all these enums and anywhere else using AttributeSource that may need to be lazy init.
> 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-DocIdSetIterator.patch, LUCENE-1458-DocIdSetIterator.patch, LUCENE-1458-MTQ-BW.patch, LUCENE-1458-NRQ.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.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, LUCENE-1458_rotate.patch, LUCENE-1458_sortorder_bwcompat.patch, LUCENE-1458_termenum_bwcompat.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Michael McCandless (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12651078#action_12651078 ]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-1458:
--------------------------------------------
bq. Warming is only needed once, at search service startup.
Ahh, got it. Lucene must warm for each reopened searcher (though that warming cost will eventually be in proportion to what's changed in the index), but KS/Lucy should be fine doing zero warming except for the very first searcher startup (eg after rebooting the machine).
> 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
> Fix For: 2.9
>
> Attachments: LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Robert Muir (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12781935#action_12781935 ]
Robert Muir commented on LUCENE-1458:
-------------------------------------
bq. Yes, this (customizing comparator for termrefs) would definitely be very advanced stuff... you'd have to create your own codec to do it. And we'd default to UTF16 sort order for back compat.
Agreed, changing the sort order breaks a lot of things (not just some crazy seeking around code that I write)
i.e. if 'ch' is a character in some collator and sorts b, before c (completely made up example, there are real ones like this though)
Then even prefixquery itself will fail!
> 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.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, LUCENE-1458_sortorder_bwcompat.patch, LUCENE-1458_termenum_bwcompat.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Michael McCandless (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12781713#action_12781713 ]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-1458:
--------------------------------------------
Well, for starters can't we just toString() the TermRef on every compare? Then we're back in UTF16 space.
It's not as good as flex can be (ie doing the checks in UTF8 space), but it should still be faster than trunk today, so this shouldn't block flex landing, right?
> 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.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, LUCENE-1458_termenum_bwcompat.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Uwe Schindler (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12783496#action_12783496 ]
Uwe Schindler commented on LUCENE-1458:
---------------------------------------
bq. because it compares from left to right, so even if the terms are 10x as long, if they differ 2x as quick its better?
It would not compare faster because in UTF-8 encoding, only 7 bits are used for encoding the chars. The 8th bit is just a marker (simply spoken). If this marker is always 0 or always 1 does not make a difference, in UTF-8 only 7 bits/byte are used for data. And with UTF-8 in the 3rd byte more bits are unused!
bq. I hear what you are saying about ASCII-only encoding, but if NRQ's model is always best, why do we have two separate "encode byte[] into char[]" models in lucene, one that NRQ is using, and one that collation is using!?
I do not know who made this IndexableBinaryStrings encoding, but it would not work for NRQ at all with current trunk (too complicated during indexing and decoding, because for NRQ, we also need to decode such char[] very fast for populating the FieldCache). But as discussed with Yonik (do not know the issue), the ASCII only encoding should always perform better (but needs more memory in trunk, as char[] is used during indexing -- I think because of that it was added). So the difference is not speed, its memory consumption.
> 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.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, LUCENE-1458_sortorder_bwcompat.patch, LUCENE-1458_termenum_bwcompat.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Michael Busch (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12748617#action_12748617 ]
Michael Busch commented on LUCENE-1458:
---------------------------------------
In the current patch the choice of the Codec is index-wide, right? So I can't specify different codecs for different fields. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
> 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.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Updated: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Uwe Schindler (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]
Uwe Schindler updated LUCENE-1458:
----------------------------------
Attachment: LUCENE-1458-MTQ-BW.patch
This is what I am thinking about for BW and delegation between getEnum() and getTermsEnum().
> 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-MTQ-BW.patch, LUCENE-1458-NRQ.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.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, LUCENE-1458_rotate.patch, LUCENE-1458_sortorder_bwcompat.patch, LUCENE-1458_termenum_bwcompat.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Marvin Humphrey (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12650722#action_12650722 ]
Marvin Humphrey commented on LUCENE-1458:
-----------------------------------------
> How about the caller provides a codec instance which when asked will
> return a TermsDictReader "matching" the codec that had been used to
> write the index?
OK, it makes sense to have the user access these capabilities via a single
handle at both index-time and search-time. However, for Lucy/KS, the handle
should definitely be specified via the Schema subclass rather than via
constructor argument.
"Codec" isn't really the right name for this, though. "IndexComponent",
maybe? Lucy would have three main index components by default:
LexiconComponent, PostingsComponent, StorageComponent.
{code}
// If Lucy's Schema class were implemented in Java instead of C...
abstract class Schema extends Obj {
LexiconComponent lexiconComponent() { return new LexiconComponent(); }
PostingsComponent postingsComponent() { return new PostingsComponent(); }
StorageComponent storageComponent() { return new StorageComponent(); }
...
}
{code}
Auxiliary IndexComponents might include TermVectorsComponent,
SortCacheComponent, ColumnStrideComponent, RTreeComponent, etc.
Here's example code for overriding the default LexiconComponent:
{code}
// Implements term dictionary as a hash table with term texts as keys.
class HashLexiconComponent extends LexiconComponent {
LexiconReader makeReader(InvIndex invindex, Snapshot snapshot) {
SegInfos segInfos = Snapshot.getSegInfos();
if (segInfos.size == 1) {
return (LexiconReader) new SegHashLexiconReader(invindex, snapshot);
}
else {
return (LexiconReader) new MultiHashLexiconReader(invindex, snapshot);
}
}
LexiconWriter makeWriter(InvIndex invindex, SegInfo segInfo) {
return (LexiconWriter) new HashLexiconWriter(invindex, segInfo);
}
}
// [User code]
class MySchema extends Schema {
LexiconComponent lexiconComponent() {
return (LexiconComponent) new HashLexiconComponent();
}
...
}
{code}
> 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
> Fix For: 2.9
>
> Attachments: LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Robert Muir (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12781720#action_12781720 ]
Robert Muir commented on LUCENE-1458:
-------------------------------------
Mike, if it means anything, I prefer the new behavior... real codepoint order :)
But this is a compat problem I think.
> 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.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, LUCENE-1458_sortorder_bwcompat.patch, LUCENE-1458_termenum_bwcompat.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Mark Miller (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12784903#action_12784903 ]
Mark Miller commented on LUCENE-1458:
-------------------------------------
Interesting ... after many, many runs without seeing that testreopen gc overhead limit exceeded, I just hit it again randomly.
> 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-MTQ-BW.patch, LUCENE-1458-NRQ.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.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, LUCENE-1458_rotate.patch, LUCENE-1458_sortorder_bwcompat.patch, LUCENE-1458_termenum_bwcompat.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Michael McCandless (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12778586#action_12778586 ]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-1458:
--------------------------------------------
Thanks Mark! Hopefully, once 3.0 is out the door, the merging becomes a little less crazy. I was dreading carrying this through 3.0 and I'm very glad you stepped in ;)
> 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.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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Michael McCandless (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12781899#action_12781899 ]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-1458:
--------------------------------------------
bq. i hate binary order in general to be honest.
But binary order in this case is code point order.
> 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.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, LUCENE-1458_sortorder_bwcompat.patch, LUCENE-1458_termenum_bwcompat.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Mark Miller (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12766362#action_12766362 ]
Mark Miller commented on LUCENE-1458:
-------------------------------------
// nocommit -- wonder if simple double-barrel LRU cache
// would be better
Yeah - haven't considered anything about the cache being used - really just took the same cache that was being used to cache terminfos. The only reason I changed to my own impl over SimpleLRUCache was that I wanted to reuse the removed entry.
// nocommit -- we should not init cache w/ full
// capacity? init it at 0, and only start evicting
// once #entries is over our max
Same here - I took the same thing the old cache was doing.
Do we want to start it at 0 though? Perhaps a little higher? Doesn't it keep rehashing to roughly double the size? That could be a lot of resizing ...
> 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.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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Michael McCandless (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12650534#action_12650534 ]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-1458:
--------------------------------------------
{quote}
Just the index terms (i.e. every 128th term). We're trying to fake up an
array of strings without having to load anything into process memory. The
comparison would go something like this:
{quote}
OK this makes sense. We could do something similar in Lucene. Not
creating String objects is nice. I wonder in practice how much time
we are "typically" spending loading the terms index...
{quote}
However, perhaps some sort of a B-tree with string prefix compression would be
better, as per recent suggestions.
{quote}
B-tree or FST/trie or ... something.
Actually: I just realized the terms index need not store all suffixes
of the terms it stores. Only unique prefixes (ie a simple letter
trie, not FST). Because, its goal is to simply find the spot in the
main lexicon file to seek to and then scan from. This makes it even
smaller!
Though, if we want to do neat things like respelling, wildcard/prefix
searching, etc., which reduce to graph-intersection problems, we would
need the suffix and we would need the entire lexicon (not just every
128th index term) compiled into the FST.
> 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
> Fix For: 2.9
>
> Attachments: LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Issue Comment Edited: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards
flexible indexing
Posted by "Mark Miller (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12766359#action_12766359 ]
Mark Miller edited comment on LUCENE-1458 at 10/15/09 6:10 PM:
---------------------------------------------------------------
{code}
// nocommit -- not needed? we don't need to sync since
// only one thread works with this?
/*
@Override
public synchronized Object put(Object key, Object value) {
// TODO Auto-generated method stub
return super.put(key, value);
}
@Override
public synchronized Object get(Object key) {
// TODO Auto-generated method stub
return super.get(key);
}
*/
{code}
Whoops! I'm sorry! I wondered why I didn't have to replace all to get rid of that when I updated - I didn't mean to commit that! That was just part of my experimenting with the RAM blowout issue - was just making sure everything still worked without each thread having its own cache. That means the ThreadResources was out of whack too - I did have it as a member of the SegmentTermsEnum - I'm sorry - totally didn't mean to commit that!
*edit* Also the stuff with the threadResourceSet and setting to null - just trying to figure out the mem issue - I did a bunch of debugging things and they all got caught up in a merge. Yuck.
was (Author: markrmiller@gmail.com):
{code}
// nocommit -- not needed? we don't need to sync since
// only one thread works with this?
/*
@Override
public synchronized Object put(Object key, Object value) {
// TODO Auto-generated method stub
return super.put(key, value);
}
@Override
public synchronized Object get(Object key) {
// TODO Auto-generated method stub
return super.get(key);
}
*/
{code}
Whoops! I'm sorry! I wondered why I didn't have to replace all to get rid of that when I updated - I didn't mean to commit that! That was just part of my experimenting with the RAM blowout issue - was just making sure everything still worked without each thread having its own cache. That means the ThreadResources was out of whack too - I did have it as a member of the SegmentTermsEnum - I'm sorry - totally didn't mean to commit that!
> 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.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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Michael McCandless (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12767071#action_12767071 ]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-1458:
--------------------------------------------
bq. Pulsing is more of an issue because of the Document caching...
Yeah, we probably need to measure cache size by RAM usage not shear count. And, make it settable when you instantiate the codec.
bq. Sep and Pulsing still need to be trimmed down though
Are they causing OOMs with TestIndexReaderReopen? (I haven't tried yet).
> 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.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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Michael McCandless (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12785356#action_12785356 ]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-1458:
--------------------------------------------
bq. Should we still try and do the reuse stuff, or should we just drop it and use the cache as it is now?
How about starting w/o reuse but leave a TODO saying we could/should investigate?
> 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-DocIdSetIterator.patch, LUCENE-1458-DocIdSetIterator.patch, LUCENE-1458-MTQ-BW.patch, LUCENE-1458-NRQ.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.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, LUCENE-1458_rotate.patch, LUCENE-1458_sortorder_bwcompat.patch, LUCENE-1458_termenum_bwcompat.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Mark Miller (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12764531#action_12764531 ]
Mark Miller commented on LUCENE-1458:
-------------------------------------
Okay, after all that poking around in the dark, tonight I decided to actually try turning on the DEBUG stuff you have and figuring out how things actually work ;) Always too lazy to open that instruction manual till I've wasted plenty of time spinning in circles.
So I've got it working -
When it was working like 99% I benched the speed at 6300-6500 r/s with the samerdr bench as compared to 9500-11000 with the trunk version I had checked out.
But that last 1% meant adding two TermRef clones, and that dropped things to about 5800 or so.
I'm sure I might have a few wasteful instructions and/or there can be a little more eeked out, but I think it will still come up short.
I dont see seek(ord) being called using eclipse (other than in tests), but it may be missing it? So I'm not really sure if it needs to be cached or not - no code to test it with at the moment.
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Michael McCandless (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12783596#action_12783596 ]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-1458:
--------------------------------------------
Thanks Uwe!
> 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.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, LUCENE-1458_rotate.patch, LUCENE-1458_sortorder_bwcompat.patch, LUCENE-1458_termenum_bwcompat.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Marvin Humphrey (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12650380#action_12650380 ]
Marvin Humphrey commented on LUCENE-1458:
-----------------------------------------
>> I suppose we genericize this by adding a TermsDictReader/LexReader
>> argument to the IndexReader constructor? That way, someone can
>> supply a custom subclass that knows how to decode custom dictionary
>> files.
>
> Right; that's what let me create the PulsingCodec here.
I'm running into an OO design problem because of the SegmentReader/MultiReader
bifurcation. If IndexReader were an ordinary class, and we expected all of
its component parts to perform their own collation of data from multiple
segments, then the API for overriding individual components would be
straightforward:
{code}
reader = new IndexReader(termsDictReader, postingsReader, fieldsReader);
{code}
We can't do that, though, because there's logic in IndexReader.open() which
guards against race conditions with regards to file deletion and index
modification, and the initialization of the auxiliary reader components would
happen outside those guards -- possibly resulting in sub-components within an
IndexReader object reading from different versions of the index.
Using setters a la reader.setTermsDictReader(termsDictReader) is problematic
for the same reason.
Are factory methods the only way to handle adding or replacing components
within IndexReader?
KS forces people to subclass Schema to define their index, but up till now
there hasn't been anything that would affect the complement of major
sub-components within IndexReader or InvIndexer (=IndexWriter). I suppose
Schema is the right place to put stuff like this, but it seems a lot more
elaborate than the factory method which returns the index's default Analyzer.
> 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
> Fix For: 2.9
>
> Attachments: LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Marvin Humphrey (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12651067#action_12651067 ]
Marvin Humphrey commented on LUCENE-1458:
-----------------------------------------
> Well, maybe both? Ie, each of these IndexComponents could have many
> different codecs to write/read the data to/from the index. So when I
> implement PostingsComponent, when writing a segment I could choose my
> own codec; when reading it, I retrieve the matching codec to decode
> it.
Yes, both -- that sounds good. However, I'm not sure whether you're proposing
the creation of a class named "Codec", which I think we should avoid unless
all of our "codecs" can descend from it. So: PostingsCodec, TermsDictCodec
(or LexiconCodec, for Lucy/KS), and so on would be base classes.
> Subclassing Schema seems like the right approach.
Groovy. How are you going to handle it in Lucene? I think you just have to
require the end user to be consistent about supplying the necessary arguments
to the IndexReader and IndexWriter constructors.
How do we handle auxiliary IndexComponents? I've long wanted to implement an
RTreeComponent for geographic searching, so I'll use that as an example.
At index-time, I think we just create an array of SegDataWriter objects and
feed each document to each writer in turn. The SegDataWriter abstract base
class will define all the necessary abstract methods: addDoc(),
addSegment(SegReader) (for Lucy/KS), various commands related to merging (for
Lucene), finish()/close(), and so on. RTreeWriter would simply subclass
SegDataWriter.
At search-time, things get a little trickier. Say we hand our Searcher object
an RTreeRadiusQuery. At some point, the RTreeRadiusQuery will need to be
compiled to an RTreeRadiusScorer, which will involve accessing an RTreeReader
which presumably resides within an IndexReader. However, right now,
IndexReader hides all of its inner readers and provides access through
specific methods, e.g. IndexReader.document(int docNum), which ultimately
hands off to FieldsReader internally. This model doesn't scale with the
addition of arbitrary IndexComponents.
The only thing I can thing of is an IndexReader.getReader(String name) method.
> 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
> Fix For: 2.9
>
> Attachments: LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Updated: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Michael McCandless (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]
Michael McCandless updated LUCENE-1458:
---------------------------------------
Attachment: LUCENE-1458.patch
[Attached patch]
To test whether the new pluggable codec approach is flexible enough, I
coded up "pulsing" (described in detail in
http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/cutting90optimizations.html), where
freq/prox info is inlined into the terms dict if the term freq is < N.
It was wonderfully simple :) I just had to create a reader & a writer,
and then switch the places that read (SegmentReader) and write
(SegmentMerger, FreqProxTermsWriter) to use the new pulsing codec
instead of the default one.
The pulsing codec can "wrap" any other codec, ie, when a term is
written, if the term's freq is < N, then it's inlined into the terms
dict with the pulsing writer, else it's fed to the other codec for it
to do whatever it normally would. The two codecs are strongly
decoupled, so we can mix & match pulsing with other codecs like pfor.
All tests pass with this pulsing codec.
As a quick test I indexed first 1M docs from Wikipedia, with N=2 (ie
terms that occur only in one document are inlined into the terms
dict). 5.4M terms get inlined (only 1 doc) and 2.2M terms are not (>
1 doc). The final size of the index (after optimizing) was a bit
smaller with pulsing (1120 MB vs 1131 MB).
> 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
> Fix For: 2.9
>
> Attachments: LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Michael McCandless (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12783598#action_12783598 ]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-1458:
--------------------------------------------
{quote}
fwiw here is a patch to use the algorithm from the unicode std for utf8 in utf16 sort order.
they claim it is fast because there is no conditional branching... who knows
{quote}
We could try to test to see if we see a difference in practice...
For term text without surrogate content, the branch always goes one way, so the CPU ought to predict it well and it may turn out to be faster using branching.
With surrogates, likely the lookup approach is faster since the branch has good chance of going either way.
However, the lookup approach adds 256 bytes to CPUs memory cache, which I'm not thrilled about. We have other places that do the same (NORM_TABLE in Similarity, scoreCache in TermScorer), that I think are much more warranted to make the time vs cache line tradeoff since they deal with a decent amount of CPU.
Or maybe worrying about cache lines from way up in javaland is just silly ;)
I guess at this point I'd lean towards keeping the branch based comparator.
> 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.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, LUCENE-1458_rotate.patch, LUCENE-1458_sortorder_bwcompat.patch, LUCENE-1458_termenum_bwcompat.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Michael McCandless (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12785362#action_12785362 ]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-1458:
--------------------------------------------
bq. How about starting w/o reuse but leave a TODO saying we could/should investigate?
Actually, scratch that -- reuse is too hard in DBLRU -- I would say just no reuse now. Trunk doesn't reuse either...
> 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-DocIdSetIterator.patch, LUCENE-1458-DocIdSetIterator.patch, LUCENE-1458-MTQ-BW.patch, LUCENE-1458-NRQ.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.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, LUCENE-1458_rotate.patch, LUCENE-1458_sortorder_bwcompat.patch, LUCENE-1458_termenum_bwcompat.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Michael McCandless (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12783471#action_12783471 ]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-1458:
--------------------------------------------
OK I finally worked out a solution for the UTF16 sort order problem
(just committed).
I added a TermRef.Comparator class, for comparing TermRefs, and I
removed TermRef.compareTo, and fixed all low-level places in Lucene
that rely on sort order of terms to use this new API instead.
I changed the Terms/TermsEnum/TermsConsumer API, adding a
getTermComparator(), ie, the codec now determines the sort order for
terms in each field. For the core codecs (standard, pulsing,
intblock) I default to UTF16 sort order, for back compat, but you
could easily instantiate it yourself and use a different term sort.
I changed TestExternalCodecs to test this new capability, by sorting 2
of its fields in reversed unicode code point order.
While this means your codec is now completely free to define the
term sort order per field, in general Lucene queries will not behave
right if you do this, so it's obviously a very advanced use case.
I also changed (yet again!) how DocumentsWriter encodes the terms
bytes, to record the length (in bytes) of the term, up front, followed by the
term bytes (vs the trailing 0xff that I had switched to). The length
is a 1 or 2 byte vInt, ie if it's < 128 it's 1 byte, else 2 bytes.
This approach means the TermRef.Collector doesn't have to deal with
0xff's (which was messy).
I think this also means that, to the flex API, a term is actually
opaque -- it's just a series of bytes. It need not be UTF8 bytes.
However, all of analysis, and then how TermsHash builds up these
byte[]s, and what queries do with these bytes, is clearly still very
much Unicode/UTF8. But one could, in theory (I haven't tested this!)
separately use the flex API to build up a segment whose terms are
arbitrary byte[]'s, eg maybe you want to use 4 bytes to encode int
values, and then interact with those terms at search time
using the flex API.
> 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.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, LUCENE-1458_sortorder_bwcompat.patch, LUCENE-1458_termenum_bwcompat.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Michael Busch (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12764078#action_12764078 ]
Michael Busch commented on LUCENE-1458:
---------------------------------------
I added this cache originally because it seemed the easiest to improve the term lookup performance.
Now we're adding the burden of implementing such a cache to every codec, right? Maybe instead we should improve the search runtime to not call idf() twice for every term?
> 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.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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Updated: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Michael McCandless (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]
Michael McCandless updated LUCENE-1458:
---------------------------------------
Attachment: LUCENE-1458.tar.bz2
LUCENE-1458-back-compat.patch
Attached current patch. All tests pass:
* Cutover merging to flex API.
* Cutover FieldCache to flex API. This got tricky, because terms
are now UTF8 byte[]. First, we have a back-compat issue (I
changed FieldCache's parsers to take TermRef not String). Second,
parsing float/double from byte[] is tricky. I just punted and
made a new String(), and then called parseDouble/parseFloat, which
is slow (but, NumericFields don't do this -- they are easy to
parse straight from byte[], I think). Net/net this should be
faster loading the FieldCache now. Also, later we can make a
String/StringIndex FieldCache variant that keeps things as byte[].
* Cutover CheckIndex to flex API.
* Removed the codec-owned extensions from IndexFileNames; added
methods to quey a Codec for all file extensions it may write. As
part of this there is a minor (I think) runtime change whereby
Directory.copy or new RamDirectory(Directory) will now copy all
files not just index-related files.
I'm now working towards getting this committable. While PforDelta
works, I think we should move its codec over to LUCENE-1410 and get it
working well, separately, after this is committed.
Still need to cutover more stuff (queries, AllTermDocs, etc.) to flex
API, get the ThreadLocal cache carried over, fix a bunch of nocommits,
remove debugging, do perf testing & fix issues, add some more tests,
etc.
> 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.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
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Issue Comment Edited: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards
flexible indexing
Posted by "Mark Miller (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12766350#action_12766350 ]
Mark Miller edited comment on LUCENE-1458 at 10/15/09 5:41 PM:
---------------------------------------------------------------
{quote}// nocommit -- why scanCnt > 1?
//if (docs.canCaptureState() && scanCnt > 1) {{quote}
My mistake - an early mess up when I was copying from preflix caching code - I saw it doing this - but its doing it with the cached enum - I should have been looking below where it doesn't do that. Just a left over from early on when I was kind of shooting in the dark.
*edit*
I also had messed with it a bit - tried 0 and 2 - neither appeared to affect the micro bench samerdrsearch results. Seemed odd. Adding the cache did help those results, so I'd expect that changing that would affect things more.
was (Author: markrmiller@gmail.com):
{quote}// nocommit -- why scanCnt > 1?
//if (docs.canCaptureState() && scanCnt > 1) {{quote}
My mistake - an early mess up when I was copying from preflix caching code - I saw it doing this - but its doing it with the cached enum - I should have been looking below where it doesn't do that. Just a left over from early on when I was kind of shooting in the dark.
> 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.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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Issue Comment Edited: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards
flexible indexing
Posted by "Mark Miller (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12765149#action_12765149 ]
Mark Miller edited comment on LUCENE-1458 at 10/13/09 10:45 AM:
----------------------------------------------------------------
Whoops - double check the wrong index splitter test - the multi pass one is throwing a null pointer exception for me - don't think its related to this patch, but I havn't checked.
*edit*
Okay, just checked - it is this patch. Looks like perhaps something to do with LegacyFieldsEnum? Something that isnt being hit by core tests at the moment (I didnt run through all the backcompat tests with this yet, since that failed)
was (Author: markrmiller@gmail.com):
Whoops - double check the wrong index splitter test - the multi pass one is throwing a null pointer exception for me - don't think its related to this patch, but I havn't checked.
> 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.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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Mark Miller (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12648613#action_12648613 ]
Mark Miller commented on LUCENE-1458:
-------------------------------------
Hmmm...I think something is missing - FormatPostingsPositionsReader?
> 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
> Fix For: 2.9
>
> Attachments: LUCENE-1458.patch
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Issue Comment Edited: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards
flexible indexing
Posted by "Uwe Schindler (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12785314#action_12785314 ]
Uwe Schindler edited comment on LUCENE-1458 at 12/3/09 1:34 PM:
----------------------------------------------------------------
bq. It'd be great if we could find a way to do this without a big hairball of back compat code
DocsEnum is a new class, why not fit it from the beginning as DocIdSetIterator? In my opinion, as pointed out above, the AttributeSource stuff should go in as a lazy-init member behind getAttributes() / attributes().
So I would define it as:
{code}
public abstract class DocsEnum extends DocIdSetIterator {
private AttributeSource atts = null;
public int freq()
public DontKnowClassName positions()
public AttributeSource attributes() {
if (atts==null) atts=new AttributeSource();
return atts;
}
...default impl of the bulk access using the abstract methods from DocIdSetIterator
}
{code}
The same stra
was (Author: thetaphi):
bq. It'd be great if we could find a way to do this without a big hairball of back compat code
DocsEnum is a new class, why not fit it from the beginning as DocIdSetIterator? In my opinion, as pointed out above, the AttributeSource stuff should go in as a lazy-init member behind getAttributes() / attributes().
> 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-MTQ-BW.patch, LUCENE-1458-NRQ.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.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, LUCENE-1458_rotate.patch, LUCENE-1458_sortorder_bwcompat.patch, LUCENE-1458_termenum_bwcompat.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Marvin Humphrey (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12648835#action_12648835 ]
Marvin Humphrey commented on LUCENE-1458:
-----------------------------------------
> I'm not sure I'd trust the OS's IO cache to "make the right decisions" about what to cache.
In KS and Lucy, at least, we're focused on optimizing for the use case of dedicated search clusters where each box has enough RAM to fit the entire index/shard -- in which case we won't have to worry about the OS swapping out those pages.
I suspect that in many circumstances the term dictionary would be a hot file even if RAM were running short, but I don't think it's important to worry about maxing out performance on such systems -- if the term dictionary isn't hot the posting list files are definitely not hot and search-time responsiveness is already compromised.
In other words...
* I trust the OS to do a decent enough job on underpowered systems.
* High-powered systems should strive to avoid swapping entirely. To aid in that endeavor, we minimize per-process RAM consumption by maximizing our use of mmap and treating the system IO cache backing buffers as interprocess shared memory.
More on designing with modern virtual memory in mind at <http://varnish.projects.linpro.no/wiki/ArchitectNotes>.
> Plus during that binary search the IO system is loading whole pages into
> the IO cache, even though you'll only peak at the first few bytes of each.
I'd originally been thinking of mapping only the term dictionary index files. Those are pretty small, and the file itself occupies fewer bytes than the decompressed array of term/pointer pairs. Even better if you have several search app forks and they're all sharing the same memory mapped system IO buffer.
But hey, we can simplify even further! How about dispensing with the index file? We can just divide the main dictionary file into blocks and binary search on that.
Killing off the term dictionary index yields a nice improvement in code and file specification simplicity, and there's no performance penalty for our primary optimization target use case.
> We could also explore something in-between, eg it'd be nice to
> genericize MultiLevelSkipListWriter so that it could index arbitrary
> files, then we could use that to index the terms dict. You could
> choose to spend dedicated process RAM on the higher levels of the skip
> tree, and then tentatively trust IO cache for the lower levels.
That doesn't meet the design goals of bringing the cost of opening/warming an IndexReader down to near-zero and sharing backing buffers among multiple forks. It's also very complicated, which of course bothers me more than it bothers you. ;) So I imagine we'll choose different paths.
> I'd like to eventually make the TermsDict index pluggable so one could
> swap in different indexers like this (it's not now).
If we treat the term dictionary as a black box, it has to accept a term and return... a blob, I guess. Whatever calls the lookup needs to know how to handle that blob.
> 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
> Fix For: 2.9
>
> Attachments: LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Mark Miller (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12766917#action_12766917 ]
Mark Miller commented on LUCENE-1458:
-------------------------------------
Okay, first pass for sep cache support is in - def needs to be trimmed down - heap issue with reopen everytime - I'm using a state object with the Index objects though, and I'm sure that can be done away with - though I guess a clone is not really much better and there is no access to their guts at the moment. Works for a first pass though.
> 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.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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Michael McCandless (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12754250#action_12754250 ]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-1458:
--------------------------------------------
{quote}
bq. Changed terms to be stored in RAM as byte[] (not char[]),
Yay! This will be important for NumericField too since it uses 7 bits per char and will probably account for the majority of terms in the index in many applications.
{quote}
It's actually byte[] both in how the terms dict index stores the terms
in RAM (using shared byte[] blocks) and also in how terms are
represented throughout the flex API. EG TermsEnum API returns
a TermRef from its next() method. TermRef holds byte[]/offset/length.
bq. Could a git branch make things easier for mega-features like this?
Maybe -- though I don't have much experience w/ git. If people are
interested in working together on this then I think it'd be worth
exploring?
> 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.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch, 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Michael McCandless (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12649968#action_12649968 ]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-1458:
--------------------------------------------
{quote}
Nevertheless, the terms index isn't that big in comparison to, say, the size
of a posting list for a common term, so the cost of re-heating it isn't
astronomical in the grand scheme of things.
{quote}
Be careful: it's the seeking that kills you (until we switch to SSDs
at which point perhaps most of this discussion is moot!). Even though
the terms index net size is low, if re-heating the spots you touch
incurs 20 separate page misses, you lose.
Potentially worse than the terms index are norms, if the search hits
alot of docs.
{quote}
> Take a large Jira instance...
Search responsiveness is already compromised in such a situation, because we
can all but guarantee that the posting list files have already been evicted
from cache. If the box has enough RAM for the large JIRA instance including
the Lucene index, search responsiveness won't be a problem. As soon as you
start running a little short on RAM, though, there's no way to stop infrequent
searches from being sluggish.
{quote}
If the term index and norms are pinned (or happen to still be hot), I
would expect most searches to be OK with this "in the middle" use case
because the number of seeks you'll hit should be well contained
(assuming your posting list isn't unduly fragmented by the
filesystem). Burning through the posting list is a linear scan.
Queries that simply hit too many docs will always be slow anyways.
I think at both extremes (way too litle RAM and tons of RAM) both
approaches (pinned in RAM vs mmap'd) should perfom the same. It's the
cases in between where I think letting VM decide whether critical
things (terms index, norms) get to stay hot is dangerous.
{quote}
The terms index could indeed get evicted some of the time on busy systems, but
the point is that the system IO cache usually works in our favor, even under
load.
{quote}
I think you're just more trusting of the IO/VM system. I think LRU is
a poor metric.
{quote}
As far as backup daemons blowing up everybody's cache, that's stupid,
pathological behavior: <http://kerneltrap.org/node/3000#comment-8573>. Such
apps ought to be calling madvise(ptr, len, MADV_SEQUENTIAL) so that the kernel
knows it can recycle the cache pages as soon as they're cleared.
{quote}
Excellent! If only more people knew about this. And, if only we
could do this from javaland. EG SegmentMerger should do this for all
segment data it's reading & writing.
{quote}
Nathan Kurz and I brainstormed this subject in a phone call this morning, and
we came up with a three-file lexicon index design:
{quote}
I don't fully understand this approach. Would the index file pointers
point into the full lexicon's packed utf8 file, or a separate "only
terms in the index" packed utf8 file?
We currently materialize individual Strings when we load our index,
which is bad because of the GC cost, added RAM overhead (& swapping)
and because for iso8859-1 only terms we are using 2X the space over
utf8. So I'd love to eventually do something similar (in RAM) for
Lucene.
{quote}
> Have you tried any actual tests swapping these approaches in as your
> terms index impl?
No - changing something like this requires a lot of coding, so it's better to
do thought experiments first to winnow down the options.
{quote}
Agreed. But once you've got the mmap-based solution up and running
it'd be nice to meaure net time doing terms lookup / norms reading,
for a variety of search use cases, and plot that on a histogram.
{quote}
When I mentioned this to Nate, he remarked that we're using the OS kernel like
you're using the JVM.
{quote}
True!
{quote}
Lucy/KS can't enforce that, and we wouldn't want to. It's very convenient to
be able to launch a cheap search process.
{quote}
It seems like the ability to very quickly launch brand new searchers
is/has become a strong design goal of Lucy/KS. What's the driver
here? Is it for near-realtime search? (Which I think may be better
achieved by having IndexWriter export a reader, rather than using IO
system as the intermediary).
If we fix terms index to bulk load arrays (it's not now) then the cost
of loading norms & terms index on instantiating a reader should be
fairly well contained, though not as near zero as Lucy/KS will be.
{quote}
> That's a nice goal. Our biggest cost in Lucene is warming the
> FieldCache, used for sorting, function queries, etc.
Exactly. It would be nice to add a plug-in indexing component that
writes sort caches to files that can be memory mapped at IndexReader
startup. There would be multiple files: both a solid array of 32-bit
integers mapping document number to sort order, and the field cache
values. Such a component would allow us to move the time it takes to
read in a sort cache from IndexReader-startup-time to index-time.
{quote}
Except I would have IndexReader use its RAM budget to pick & choose
which of these will be hot, and which would be mmap'd.
{quote}
Hmm, maybe we can conflate this with a column-stride field writer
and require that sort fields have a fixed width?
{quote}
Yes I think column-stride fields writer should write the docID -> ord
part of StringIndex to disk, and MultiRangeQuery in LUCENE-1461 would
then use it. With enumerated type of fields (far fewer unique terms
than docs), bit packing will make them compact.
{quote}
In KS, the relevant IndexReader methods no longer take a Term
object. (In fact, there IS no Term object any more -
KinoSearch::Index::Term has been removed.) Instead, they take a
string field and a generic "Obj".
{quote}
But you must at least require these Obj's to know how to compareTo one
another? Does this mean using per-field custom sort ordering
(collator) is straightforward for KS?
{quote}
I suppose we genericize this by adding a TermsDictReader/LexReader
argument to the IndexReader constructor? That way, someone can
supply a custom subclass that knows how to decode custom dictionary
files.
{quote}
Right; that's what let me create the PulsingCodec here.
The biggest problem with the "load important stuff into RAM" approach,
of course, is we can't actually pin VM pages from java, which means
the OS will happily swap out my RAM anyway, at which point of course
we should have used mmap. Though apparently at least Windows has an
option to "optimize for services" (= "don't swap out my RAM" I think)
vs "optimize for applications", and Linux lets you tune swappiness.
But both are global.
> 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
> Fix For: 2.9
>
> Attachments: LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Michael McCandless (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12785992#action_12785992 ]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-1458:
--------------------------------------------
Hmm, somehow in the last merge, we lost the fixes for LUCENE-1558 (defaulting readOnly=true for IndexReader)... IndexSearcher looks like it didn't lose the change though.
> 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: Flex Branch
> Reporter: Michael McCandless
> Assignee: Michael McCandless
> Priority: Minor
> Fix For: Flex Branch
>
> 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-DocIdSetIterator.patch, LUCENE-1458-DocIdSetIterator.patch, LUCENE-1458-MTQ-BW.patch, LUCENE-1458-NRQ.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.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, LUCENE-1458_rotate.patch, LUCENE-1458_sortorder_bwcompat.patch, LUCENE-1458_termenum_bwcompat.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Mark Miller (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12766367#action_12766367 ]
Mark Miller commented on LUCENE-1458:
-------------------------------------
Hmm - I'm still getting the heap space issue I think - its always been somewhat intermittent - sometimes it doesn't happen - usually it happens when you run all the tests - sometimes not though. Same when you run the test class individually - usually to sometimes it doesn't happen - and then usually to sometimes it does.
> 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.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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Michael McCandless (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12781638#action_12781638 ]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-1458:
--------------------------------------------
Also, on the flex branch I believe \uFFFF is no longer "reserved" by Lucene, but we should not advertise that! Terms data is stored in DocumentsWriter as UTF8 bytes, and I use 0xff byte (an invalid UTF8 byte) as end marker.
> 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.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, LUCENE-1458_termenum_bwcompat.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Robert Muir (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12783485#action_12783485 ]
Robert Muir commented on LUCENE-1458:
-------------------------------------
bq. With directly on bytes[] I meant that it could not use chars at all and directly encode the numbers into byte[] with the full 8 bits per byte. The resulting byte[] would be never UTF-8, but if the new TermRef API would be able to handle this and also the TokenStreams, it would be fine. Only the terms format would change.
Uwe, it looks like you can do this now (with the exception of tokenstreams).
A partial solution for you which does work with tokenstreams, you could use indexablebinarystring which won't change between any unicode sort order... (it will not encode in any unicode range where there is a difference between the UTF-8/UTF32 and UTF-16). With this you could just compare bytes also, but you still would not have the "full 8 bits per byte"
> 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.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, LUCENE-1458_sortorder_bwcompat.patch, LUCENE-1458_termenum_bwcompat.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Updated: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Mark Miller (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]
Mark Miller updated LUCENE-1458:
--------------------------------
Attachment: LUCENE-1458.patch
eh - even if you have moved on, if I'm going to put up a patch, might as well do it right - here is another:
* removed a boatload of unused imports
* removed DefaultSkipListWriter/Reader - I accidently put them back in
* removed an unused field or two (not all)
* paramaterized LegacySegmentMergeQueue.java
* Fixed the double read I mentioned in previous comment in IndexWriter
* TermRef defines an equals (that throws UOE) and not hashCode - early stuff I guess but odd since no class extends it. Added a hashCode that throws UOE anyway.
* fixed bug in TermRangeTermsEnum: lowerTermRef = new TermRef(lowerTermText); to lowerTermRef = new TermRef(this.lowerTermText);
* Fixed Remote contrib test to work with TermRef for fieldcache parser (since you don't include contrib in the tar)
* Missed a StringBuffer to StringBuilder in MultiTermQuery.toString
* had missed removing deprecated IndexReader.open(final Directory directory) and deprecated IndexReader.open(final IndexCommit commit)
* Paramertized some stuff in ParrallelReader that made sense - what the heck
* added a nocommit or two on unread fields with a comment that made it look like they were/will be used
* Looks like SegmentTermPositions.java may have been screwy in last patch - ensure its now a deleted file - same with TermInfosWriter.java
* You left getEnum(IndexReader reader) in the MultiTerm queries, but no in PrefixQuery - just checkin'.
* Missed removing listAll from FileSwitchDirectory - gone
* cleaned up some white space nothings in the patch
* I guess TestBackwardsCompatibility.java has been removed from trunk or something? kept it here for now.
* looks like i missed merging in a change to TestIndexWriter.java#assertNoUnreferencedFiles - done
* doubled checked my merge work
core and contrib tests pass
> 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.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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Uwe Schindler (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12784829#action_12784829 ]
Uwe Schindler commented on LUCENE-1458:
---------------------------------------
I rewrote to:
{code}
public void testEmptyTerm() throws IOException {
RAMDirectory indexStore = getIndexStore("field", new String[]{"nowildcard", "nowildcardx"});
IndexSearcher searcher = new IndexSearcher(indexStore, true);
MultiTermQuery wq = new WildcardQuery(new Term("field", ""));
wq.setRewriteMethod(MultiTermQuery.SCORING_BOOLEAN_QUERY_REWRITE);
assertMatches(searcher, wq, 0);
Query q = searcher.rewrite(wq);
assertTrue(q instanceof BooleanQuery);
assertEquals(0, ((BooleanQuery) q).clauses().size());
}
{code}
> 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-MTQ-BW.patch, LUCENE-1458-NRQ.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.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, LUCENE-1458_rotate.patch, LUCENE-1458_sortorder_bwcompat.patch, LUCENE-1458_termenum_bwcompat.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "DM Smith (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12781947#action_12781947 ]
DM Smith commented on LUCENE-1458:
----------------------------------
bq. Yes, this (customizing comparator for termrefs) would definitely be very advanced stuff... you'd have to create your own codec to do it. And we'd default to UTF16 sort order for back compat.
For those of us working on texts in all different kinds of languages, it should not be very advanced stuff. It should be stock Lucene. A default UCA comparator would be good. And a way to provide a locale sensitive UCA comparator would also be good.
My use case is that each Lucene index typically has a single language or at least has a dominant language.
bq. ...not to talk about TermRangeQueries and NumericRangeQueries. They rely on String.compareTo like the current terms dict.
I think that String.compareTo works correctly on UCA collation keys.
> 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.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, LUCENE-1458_sortorder_bwcompat.patch, LUCENE-1458_termenum_bwcompat.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Mark Miller (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12785301#action_12785301 ]
Mark Miller commented on LUCENE-1458:
-------------------------------------
Cool - was actually thinking about looking if you had done that yet last night (unrelatedly)
> 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-MTQ-BW.patch, LUCENE-1458-NRQ.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.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, LUCENE-1458_rotate.patch, LUCENE-1458_sortorder_bwcompat.patch, LUCENE-1458_termenum_bwcompat.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Michael McCandless (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12749434#action_12749434 ]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-1458:
--------------------------------------------
{quote}
I'm a bit confused. Doesn't the IndexWriter open SegmentReaders
usually with termsIndexDivisor=-1 for merge, and maybe later with
a termsIndexDivisor>0 when IndexWriter#getReader() is called?
That's what I meant with loading lazily.
{quote}
Right, it does. This is the one case (internal to Lucene, only) where
loading lazily is still necessary.
{quote}
I thought that's why it'd be good to separate the terms index from
the terms dict. For merge we'd open the dict reader only, and then
if getReader() is called we'd open the terms index reader and give
its reference to the dict reader.
{quote}
OK got it. I think this makes sense.
The separation in the current approach is already quite strong, in
that the terms dict writer/reader maintains its own String[] indexText
and long[] indexOffset and then "defers" to its child component just
what is stored in each terms dict entry. So each child can store
whatever it wants in the terms dict entry (eg the pulsing codec
inlines low-freq postings).
If we make pluggable how the indexText/indexOffset is stored/loaded in
memory/used, then we have a stronger separation/pluggability on the
index. EG even before FST for the index we should switch to blocks of
char[] instead of separate Strings, for indexText.
> 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.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Michael McCandless (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12762576#action_12762576 ]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-1458:
--------------------------------------------
bq. One of the common statistics one needs to implement some more advanced scoring approaches is the average document length. Is this patch far enough along that I could take a look at it and think about how one might do this?
Well, thinking through how you'd do this... likely you'd want to store
the avg length (in tokens), eg as a single float per field per
segment, right? The natural place to store this would be in the
FieldInfos, I think?. Unfortunately, this patch doesn't yet add
extensibility to FieldInfos.
And you'd need a small customization to the indexing chain to
compute this when indexing new docs, which is already doable today
(though, package private).
But then on merging segments, you'd need an extensions point, which we
don't have today, to recompute the avg. Hmm: how would you handle
deleted docs? Would you want to go back to the field length for every
doc & recompute the average? (Which'd mean you need to per doc per
field length, not just the averages).
Unfortunately, this patch doesn't yet address things like customizing
what's stored in FieldInfo or SegmentInfo, nor customizing what
happens during merging (though it takes us a big step closer to this).
I think we need both of these to "finish" flexible indexing, but I'm
thinking at this point that these should really be tackled in followon
issue(s). This issue is already ridiculously massive.
> 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.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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Updated: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Robert Muir (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]
Robert Muir updated LUCENE-1458:
--------------------------------
Attachment: LUCENE-1458_termenum_bwcompat.patch
attached is a patch that provides a workaround for the back compat issue.
in my opinion it does not hurt performance (though, you should optimize this)
when opening a TermEnum with IndexReader.terms(Term), the deprecated API,
in LegacyTermEnum(Term t), if the term ends with a lead surrogate, tack on \uDC00 to emulate the old behavior.
with this patch, my testcase passes.
we might be able to workaround these issues in similar ways for better backwards compatibility, at the same time preserving performance.
I think we should mention somewhere in the docs that the new api behaves a bit differently though, so people know to fix their code.
> 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.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, LUCENE-1458_termenum_bwcompat.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Updated: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Michael McCandless (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]
Michael McCandless updated LUCENE-1458:
---------------------------------------
Fix Version/s: (was: 2.9)
Clearing fix version.
> 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.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Issue Comment Edited: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards
flexible indexing
Posted by "Robert Muir (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12781935#action_12781935 ]
Robert Muir edited comment on LUCENE-1458 at 11/24/09 2:01 PM:
---------------------------------------------------------------
bq. Yes, this (customizing comparator for termrefs) would definitely be very advanced stuff... you'd have to create your own codec to do it. And we'd default to UTF16 sort order for back compat.
Agreed, changing the sort order breaks a lot of things (not just some crazy seeking around code that I write)
i.e. if 'ch' is a character in some collator and sorts b, before c (completely made up example, there are real ones like this though)
Then even prefixquery itself will fail!
edit: better example is french collation, where the weight of accent marks is done in reverse order.
prefix query would make assumptions based on the prefix, which are wrong.
was (Author: rcmuir):
bq. Yes, this (customizing comparator for termrefs) would definitely be very advanced stuff... you'd have to create your own codec to do it. And we'd default to UTF16 sort order for back compat.
Agreed, changing the sort order breaks a lot of things (not just some crazy seeking around code that I write)
i.e. if 'ch' is a character in some collator and sorts b, before c (completely made up example, there are real ones like this though)
Then even prefixquery itself will fail!
> 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.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, LUCENE-1458_sortorder_bwcompat.patch, LUCENE-1458_termenum_bwcompat.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Marvin Humphrey (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12651003#action_12651003 ]
Marvin Humphrey commented on LUCENE-1458:
-----------------------------------------
> Not having to materialize one massive array of norms, of
> FieldCache/column-stride values, of docID->ord values, is very important
> because these are at least linear cost (more for the docID->ord) in # docs
> in the index. Reopening a searcher on a large index is very costly in Lucene
> now because of these materializations.
>
> We need to think more about the tradeoffs here...
Let's continue the discussion of segment-centric searching on java-dev, since it it's
only tangentially related to flexible indexing.
> 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
> Fix For: 2.9
>
> Attachments: LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Updated: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Michael McCandless (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]
Michael McCandless updated LUCENE-1458:
---------------------------------------
Attachment: LUCENE-1458.patch
New patch attached (still plenty more to do...):
* Updated to current trunk (747391).
* All tests pass, but back-compat tests don't compile...
* Switched the new "4d iteration API" (Fields -> Terms -> Docs ->
Positions) to subclass AttributeSource; this way codecs can add in
their own attrs.
* Added PostingsCodecs class, that holds all PostingCodec instances
your index may make use of, and changed segments_N format to
record which codec was used per segment. So, an index can have
mixed codecs (though for a single IndexWriter session, the same
codec is used when writing new segments).
* I cutover TermScorer to use the new API; I still need to cutover
other queries, segment merging, etc.
> 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
> Fix For: 2.9
>
> Attachments: LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch, LUCENE-1458.patch
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Uwe Schindler (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12784532#action_12784532 ]
Uwe Schindler commented on LUCENE-1458:
---------------------------------------
Mark: The updated backwards branch does not pass because of this (I did not update my checkout, the Enum test was added before 3.0). So the test should be commented out there, too (but you said, you would do this). Else, I will do tomorrow, I am tired, I would produce to many errors - sorry.
> 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-NRQ.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.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, LUCENE-1458_rotate.patch, LUCENE-1458_sortorder_bwcompat.patch, LUCENE-1458_termenum_bwcompat.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Mark Miller (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12774848#action_12774848 ]
Mark Miller commented on LUCENE-1458:
-------------------------------------
Indeed - the merging has been quite challenging - its a bit unfair really - one of these days we will have to switch - I'll write the flexible indexing stuff, and you start doing the hard tasks ;)
I'll commit the merge in a bit when the tests finish - might not get to the back compat branch if its needed till tomorrow night though.
> 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.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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Mark Miller (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12784509#action_12784509 ]
Mark Miller commented on LUCENE-1458:
-------------------------------------
I'm going to commit the latest merge to trunk in a bit.
In a recent commit, NumericRangeQuery was changed to return UnsupportedOperationException for getEnum - I think thats going to be a back compat break? For now I've commented out the back compat test and put a nocommit comment:
{code}
@Override
// nocommit: I think this needs to be implemented for back compat? When done,
// the back compat test for it in TestNumericRangeQuery32 should be uncommented.
protected FilteredTermEnum getEnum(final IndexReader reader) throws IOException {
throw new UnsupportedOperationException("not implemented");
}
{code}
I think we need to go back to returning the Enum? But I'm not sure why this change was made, so ...
> 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-NRQ.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.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, LUCENE-1458_rotate.patch, LUCENE-1458_sortorder_bwcompat.patch, LUCENE-1458_termenum_bwcompat.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Michael McCandless (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12774692#action_12774692 ]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-1458:
--------------------------------------------
Initial results. Performance is quite catastrophically bad for the MultiTermQueries! Something silly must be up....
JAVA:
java version "1.5.0_19"
Java(TM) 2 Runtime Environment, Standard Edition (build 1.5.0_19-b02)
Java HotSpot(TM) Server VM (build 1.5.0_19-b02, mixed mode)
OS:
SunOS rhumba 5.11 snv_111b i86pc i386 i86pc Solaris
||Query||Deletes %||Tot hits||QPS old||QPS new||Pct change||
|body:[tec TO tet]|0.0|body:[tec TO tet]|3.06|0.23|{color:red}-92.5%{color}|
|body:[tec TO tet]|0.1|body:[tec TO tet]|2.87|0.22|{color:red}-92.3%{color}|
|body:[tec TO tet]|1.0|body:[tec TO tet]|2.85|0.22|{color:red}-92.3%{color}|
|body:[tec TO tet]|10|body:[tec TO tet]|2.83|0.23|{color:red}-91.9%{color}|
|1|0.0|1|22.15|23.87|{color:green}7.8%{color}|
|1|0.1|1|19.89|21.72|{color:green}9.2%{color}|
|1|1.0|1|19.47|21.55|{color:green}10.7%{color}|
|1|10|1|19.82|21.13|{color:green}6.6%{color}|
|2|0.0|2|23.54|25.97|{color:green}10.3%{color}|
|2|0.1|2|21.12|23.56|{color:green}11.6%{color}|
|2|1.0|2|21.37|23.27|{color:green}8.9%{color}|
|2|10|2|21.55|23.10|{color:green}7.2%{color}|
|+1 +2|0.0|+1 +2|7.13|6.97|{color:red}-2.2%{color}|
|+1 +2|0.1|+1 +2|6.40|6.77|{color:green}5.8%{color}|
|+1 +2|1.0|+1 +2|6.41|6.64|{color:green}3.6%{color}|
|+1 +2|10|+1 +2|6.65|6.98|{color:green}5.0%{color}|
|+1 -2|0.0|+1 -2|7.78|7.95|{color:green}2.2%{color}|
|+1 -2|0.1|+1 -2|7.11|7.31|{color:green}2.8%{color}|
|+1 -2|1.0|+1 -2|7.18|7.27|{color:green}1.3%{color}|
|+1 -2|10|+1 -2|7.11|7.70|{color:green}8.3%{color}|
|1 2 3 -4|0.0|1 2 3 -4|5.03|4.91|{color:red}-2.4%{color}|
|1 2 3 -4|0.1|1 2 3 -4|4.62|4.39|{color:red}-5.0%{color}|
|1 2 3 -4|1.0|1 2 3 -4|4.72|4.67|{color:red}-1.1%{color}|
|1 2 3 -4|10|1 2 3 -4|4.78|4.74|{color:red}-0.8%{color}|
|real*|0.0|real*|28.40|0.19|{color:red}-99.3%{color}|
|real*|0.1|real*|26.23|0.20|{color:red}-99.2%{color}|
|real*|1.0|real*|26.04|0.20|{color:red}-99.2%{color}|
|real*|10|real*|26.83|0.20|{color:red}-99.3%{color}|
|"world economy"|0.0|"world economy"|18.82|17.83|{color:red}-5.3%{color}|
|"world economy"|0.1|"world economy"|18.64|17.99|{color:red}-3.5%{color}|
|"world economy"|1.0|"world economy"|18.97|18.35|{color:red}-3.3%{color}|
|"world economy"|10|"world economy"|19.59|18.12|{color:red}-7.5%{color}|
> 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.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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1458) Further steps towards flexible
indexing
Posted by "Mark Miller (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12784519#action_12784519 ]
Mark Miller commented on LUCENE-1458:
-------------------------------------
bq. Mike already wrote that in the comment
In what comment? Would be helpful to have it in a comment above getEnum.
bq. just comment it out in BW branch
Thats what I'll do. Did the BW branch pass when you did it? If not, it would be helpful to commit that fix too, or call out the break loudly in this thread - its difficult to keep up on everything and track all of this down for these merges.
bq. So please keep the code clean and do not re-add this TE.
Oh, I had no plans to do it myself ;) I just commented out the BW compat test and put the comment you see above.
> 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-NRQ.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.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, LUCENE-1458_rotate.patch, LUCENE-1458_sortorder_bwcompat.patch, LUCENE-1458_termenum_bwcompat.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch, UnicodeTestCase.patch
>
>
> 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.
--
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-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org