[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2312?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12979646#action_12979646
]
Jason Rutherglen commented on LUCENE-2312:
------------------------------------------
{quote}The one exception to point-in-time-ness are the df values in the
dictionary, which for obvious reasons is tricky.{quote}
Right, forgot about those. I think we'd planned on using a multi-dimensional
array, eg int[][]. However we'd need to test how they'll affect indexing
performance. If that doesn't work then we'll need to think about other
solutions like building them on demand, which is offloading the problem
somewhere else. It looks like docFreq is used only for phrase queries? However
I think paying a potentially small penalty during indexing (only when RT is on)
is better than a somewhat random penalty during querying.
> 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: Realtime Branch
> Reporter: Jason Rutherglen
> Assignee: Michael Busch
> Fix For: Realtime Branch
>
> Attachments: LUCENE-2312-FC.patch, LUCENE-2312.patch
>
>
> 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: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
