[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2455?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12871630#action_12871630
]
Uwe Schindler commented on LUCENE-2455:
---------------------------------------
Hi Shai,
I have seen this only lately. You added a 3.0 Index ZIP to the tests. This
conflicts a little bit with trunk, where a 3.0 Index ZIP is already available.
I would prefer to keep the "older version" ZIPs equal against each release, so
it would be fine, if the trunk-added numerics backwards test could also be in
3.x branch. Would this be possible? You have to just merge the code.
Also it looks strange that the 3.0 backwards tests now contain also 3.0 index
ZIPs, but there is no code for that??? Why have you added this to backwards?
The 3.0 backwards tests should only modify this one addindexes test, but not
add the zips. Maybe simple delete, they are not used.
By the way the 3.0 index zip file generation code is in the 3.0 branch, have
you edited it there? You should commit the code there so one is able to
regenerate the 3.0 ZIPs from the stable 3.0.x branch.
> Some house cleaning in addIndexes*
> ----------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-2455
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2455
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Index
> Reporter: Shai Erera
> Assignee: Shai Erera
> Priority: Trivial
> Fix For: 3.1, 4.0
>
> Attachments: LUCENE-2455_3x.patch, LUCENE-2455_3x.patch,
> LUCENE-2455_3x.patch, LUCENE-2455_3x.patch, LUCENE-2455_3x.patch
>
>
> Today, the use of addIndexes and addIndexesNoOptimize is confusing -
> especially on when to invoke each. Also, addIndexes calls optimize() in
> the beginning, but only on the target index. It also includes the
> following jdoc statement, which from how I understand the code, is
> wrong: _After this completes, the index is optimized._ -- optimize() is
> called in the beginning and not in the end.
> On the other hand, addIndexesNoOptimize does not call optimize(), and
> relies on the MergeScheduler and MergePolicy to handle the merges.
> After a short discussion about that on the list (Thanks Mike for the
> clarifications!) I understand that there are really two core differences
> between the two:
> * addIndexes supports IndexReader extensions
> * addIndexesNoOptimize performs better
> This issue proposes the following:
> # Clear up the documentation of each, spelling out the pros/cons of
> calling them clearly in the javadocs.
> # Rename addIndexesNoOptimize to addIndexes
> # Remove optimize() call from addIndexes(IndexReader...)
> # Document that clearly in both, w/ a recommendation to call optimize()
> before on any of the Directories/Indexes if it's a concern.
> That way, we maintain all the flexibility in the API -
> addIndexes(IndexReader...) allows for using IR extensions,
> addIndexes(Directory...) is considered more efficient, by allowing the
> merges to happen concurrently (depending on MS) and also factors in the
> MP. So unless you have an IR extension, addDirectories is really the one
> you should be using. And you have the freedom to call optimize() before
> each if you care about it, or don't if you don't care. Either way,
> incurring the cost of optimize() is entirely in the user's hands.
> BTW, addIndexes(IndexReader...) does not use neither the MergeScheduler
> nor MergePolicy, but rather call SegmentMerger directly. This might be
> another place for improvement. I'll look into it, and if it's not too
> complicated, I may cover it by this issue as well. If you have any hints
> that can give me a good head start on that, please don't be shy :).
--
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-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
