Indexing a doc won't be as fast as raw disk IO. But you won't be doing
just raw disk IO to guarantee acceptance. And that will have a cost and
complexity that really makes me wonder if its worth the speed advantage.
For very large documents with complex analyzers...perhaps. But its not
going to be an easily implementable feature (if its a true guarantee).
And its still got to involve logs and/or fsync and all that.
The reasoning for this is not ringing a bell - can you elaborate on the
motivations?
Is this so that you can commit on every doc? Every few docs?
I can def see how this would be desirable in general, but just to be
clear on your motivations.
- Mark
On 5/24/10 10:03 PM, karl.wri...@nokia.com wrote:
Hi Mark,
Unfortunately, indexing performance *is* of concern, otherwise I'd already be
committing on every post.
If your guess is correct, you are basically saying that adding a document to an
index in Solr/Lucene is just as fast as writing that file directly to the disk.
Because, obviously, if we want guaranteed delivery, that's what we'd have to
do. But I think this is worth the experiment - Solr/Lucene may be fast, but I
have doubts that it can perform as well as raw disk I/O and still manage to do
anything in the way of document analysis or (heaven forbid) text extraction.
-----Original Message-----
From: ext Mark Miller [mailto:markrmil...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, May 24, 2010 3:33 PM
To: dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Solr updateRequestHandler and performance vs. atomicity
On 5/24/10 3:10 PM, karl.wri...@nokia.com wrote:
Hi all,
It seems to me that the "commit" logic in the Solr updateRequestHandler
(or wherever the logic is actually located) conflates two different
semantics. One semantic is what you need to do to make the index process
perform well. The other semantic is guaranteed atomicity of document
reception by Solr.
In particular, it would be nice to be able to post documents in such a
way that you can guarantee that the document is permanently in Solr's
queue, safe in the event of a Solr restart, etc., even if the document
has not yet been "committed".
This issue came up in the LCF talk that I gave, and I initially thought
that separating the two kinds of events would necessarily be an LCF
change, but the more I thought about it the more I realized that other
Solr indexing clients may also benefit from such a separation.
Does anyone agree? Where should this logic properly live?
Thanks,
Karl
Its an interesting idea - but I think you would likely pay a similar
cost to guarantee reception as you would to commit (also, I'm not sure
Lucene guarantees it - it works for consistency, but I'm not so sure it
achieves durability).
I can think of two things offhand -
Perhaps store the text and use fsync to quasi guarantee acceptance -
then index from the store on the commit.
Another simpler idea if only the separation is important and not the
performance - index to another side index, taking advantage of Lucene's
current commit functionality, and then use addIndex to merge to the main
index on commit.
Just spit balling though.
I think this would obviously need to be an optional mode.
--
- Mark
http://www.lucidimagination.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
