You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to issues@lucene.apache.org by "Mike Drob (Jira)" <ji...@apache.org> on 2022/02/01 21:53:00 UTC
[jira] [Comment Edited] (LUCENE-9662) CheckIndex should be concurrent
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-9662?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17485499#comment-17485499 ]
Mike Drob edited comment on LUCENE-9662 at 2/1/22, 9:52 PM:
------------------------------------------------------------
1) Changes here have been committed, should this be marked closed?
2) There are several usages of infoStream in CheckIndex that are not guarding against null, should we fix those in this issue or a new one?
https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/637
was (Author: mdrob):
1) Changes here have been committed, should this be marked closed?
2) There are several usages of infoStream in CheckIndex that are not guarding against null, should we fix those in this issue or a new one?
> CheckIndex should be concurrent
> -------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-9662
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-9662
> Project: Lucene - Core
> Issue Type: Bug
> Reporter: Michael McCandless
> Priority: Major
> Time Spent: 20h 50m
> Remaining Estimate: 0h
>
> I am watching a nightly benchmark run slowly run its {{CheckIndex}} step, using a single core out of the 128 cores the box has.
> It seems like this is an embarrassingly parallel problem, if the index has multiple segments, and would finish much more quickly on concurrent hardware if we did "thread per segment".
> If wanted to get even further concurrency, each part of the Lucene index that is checked is also independent, so it could be "thread per segment per part".
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.1#820001)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: issues-help@lucene.apache.org