[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-2312) Search on IndexWriter's RAM Buffer

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
1 message Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-2312) Search on IndexWriter's RAM Buffer

JIRA jira@apache.org

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2312?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12890909#action_12890909 ]

Jason Rutherglen commented on LUCENE-2312:
------------------------------------------

We need to fill in the blanks on the terms dictionary
implementation. Michael B. has some good ideas on implementing it
using parallel arrays and dynamically updating a linked list
implemented as a parallel AtomicIntegerArray. A question we have
is regarding the use of a btree to quickly find the point of
insertion for a new term. The btree would replace the term index
which is binary searched and the term dictionary linearly
scanned. Perhaps there's a better data structure for concurrent
update and lookups?

Another use of the AtomicIntegerArray could be the deletes
sequence id int[]. However is it needed and would the lookup be
fast enough?



> Search on IndexWriter's RAM Buffer
> ----------------------------------
>
>                 Key: LUCENE-2312
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2312
>             Project: Lucene - Java
>          Issue Type: New Feature
>          Components: Search
>    Affects Versions: 3.0.1
>            Reporter: Jason Rutherglen
>            Assignee: Michael Busch
>             Fix For: 4.0
>
>
> In order to offer user's near realtime search, without incurring
> an indexing performance penalty, we can implement search on
> IndexWriter's RAM buffer. This is the buffer that is filled in
> RAM as documents are indexed. Currently the RAM buffer is
> flushed to the underlying directory (usually disk) before being
> made searchable.
> Todays Lucene based NRT systems must incur the cost of merging
> segments, which can slow indexing.
> Michael Busch has good suggestions regarding how to handle deletes using max doc ids.  
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2293?focusedCommentId=12841923&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels%3Acomment-tabpanel#action_12841923
> The area that isn't fully fleshed out is the terms dictionary,
> which needs to be sorted prior to queries executing. Currently
> IW implements a specialized hash table. Michael B has a
> suggestion here:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2293?focusedCommentId=12841915&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels%3Acomment-tabpanel#action_12841915

--
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: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]