[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-8586?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15122496#comment-15122496
]
Yonik Seeley commented on SOLR-8586:
------------------------------------
bq. I am thinking if per-segment caching would conflict with any potential for
in-place docValues updates
Hmmm, excellent thought.
Previously, if caching by the "core" segment key, one only needed to take into
account deletions. In this case we could have just subtracted the hash for
each deletion to do per-segment caching. But I don't know how this works with
updateable doc values. They may invalidate previous techniques for per-segment
caching (for those fields only of course).
> Implement hash over all documents to check for shard synchronization
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: SOLR-8586
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-8586
> Project: Solr
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Yonik Seeley
> Attachments: SOLR-8586.patch, SOLR-8586.patch
>
>
> An order-independent hash across all of the versions in the index should
> suffice. The hash itself is pretty easy, but we need to figure out
> when/where to do this check (for example, I think PeerSync is currently used
> in multiple contexts and this check would perhaps not be appropriate for all
> PeerSync calls?)
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
