[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2793?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12980470#action_12980470
]
Robert Muir commented on LUCENE-2793:
-------------------------------------
bq. In fact, I suggest dropping bufferSize altogether.
+1
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2793?focusedCommentId=12966963&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12966963
bq. So my bet is - introduce IOContext as a simple Enum, change bufferSize
parameter on createInput/Output to IOContext, done.
I agree, its the directories job to then take that IOContext and create an
appropriate IndexOutput.
> Directory createOutput and openInput should take an IOContext
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-2793
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2793
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Store
> Reporter: Michael McCandless
> Attachments: LUCENE-2793.patch
>
>
> Today for merging we pass down a larger readBufferSize than for searching
> because we get better performance.
> I think we should generalize this to a class (IOContext), which would hold
> the buffer size, but then could hold other flags like DIRECT (bypass OS's
> buffer cache), SEQUENTIAL, etc.
> Then, we can make the DirectIOLinuxDirectory fully usable because we would
> only use DIRECT/SEQUENTIAL during merging.
> This will require fixing how IW pools readers, so that a reader opened for
> merging is not then used for searching, and vice/versa. Really, it's only
> all the open file handles that need to be different -- we could in theory
> share del docs, norms, etc, if that were somehow possible.
--
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: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
