You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Lucene has nice optimizations in place during merging of stored fields
(#2119) and term vectors (#2197) whereby the bytes are
bulk copied to the new segmetn. This is much faster than decoding &
rewriting one document at a time.
However the optimization is rather brittle: it relies on the mapping
of field name to number to be the same ("congruent") for the segment
being merged.
Unfortunately, the field mapping will be congruent only if the app
adds the same fields in precisely the same order to each document.
I think we should fix IndexWriter to assign the same field number for
a given field that has been assigned in the past. Ie, when writing a
new segment, we pre-seed the field numbers based on past segments.
All other aspects of FieldInfo would remain fully dynamic.
I realized we should fix a few more cases here to use bulk-copy more often. First, on opening a pre-4.0 index, we should sweep all segments to union the FieldInfos so newly written segments are congruent with all past segments as much as possible. Second, when merging we should start from the current FieldInfos.
Even with this, if you addIndexes(Directory[]), which simply copies in new segments, if the fields name->number assignment on those incoming indices doesn't match the current index, then when those segments are merged they can't be bulk copied.
Lucene has nice optimizations in place during merging of stored fields
(#2119) and term vectors (#2197) whereby the bytes are
bulk copied to the new segmetn. This is much faster than decoding &
rewriting one document at a time.
However the optimization is rather brittle: it relies on the mapping
of field name to number to be the same ("congruent") for the segment
being merged.
Unfortunately, the field mapping will be congruent only if the app
adds the same fields in precisely the same order to each document.
I think we should fix IndexWriter to assign the same field number for
a given field that has been assigned in the past. Ie, when writing a
new segment, we pre-seed the field numbers based on past segments.
All other aspects of FieldInfo would remain fully dynamic.
Migrated from LUCENE-1737 by Michael McCandless (@mikemccand), resolved Dec 19 2010
Attachments: LUCENE-1737.patch (versions: 2)
Linked issues:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: