[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-7976?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16211829#comment-16211829
]
Yonik Seeley commented on LUCENE-7976:
--------------------------------------
bq. However I'm not convinced that adding a new setting which merges two
segments when it reaches a delete threshold is a good idea. It works for this
scenario but now we'll have a segment that's 8GB in size and then two 8GB
segments will merge into a 14GB segment etc.
That would be a bad idea, but I'm not sure anyone proposed that. Looks to me
like what both Erick & I said was that the max segment size would still be
respected.
bq. Instead what if the delete threshold worked like this: if we can't find any
eligible merges , pick a segment which is 5G in size and more than the
threshold deletes and rewrite just that segment. So now the 5G segment will
become 4G effectively purging he documents. Also keep a lower bound check so
users can't set a delete threshold below 20%.
It seems simpler to do what I proposed above: make the segment a candidate for
merging. If no other segments can be merged with it and keep under 5G, then it
will be merged by itself. But it could also be merged with other segments if
the resulting size is estimated to be under the cap. Looking back at Erick's
rules first proposed, it looks like the same thing actually (same result, but
just a different way of looking at it).
> Add a parameter to TieredMergePolicy to merge segments that have more than X
> percent deleted documents
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-7976
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-7976
> Project: Lucene - Core
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Erick Erickson
>
> We're seeing situations "in the wild" where there are very large indexes (on
> disk) handled quite easily in a single Lucene index. This is particularly
> true as features like docValues move data into MMapDirectory space. The
> current TMP algorithm allows on the order of 50% deleted documents as per a
> dev list conversation with Mike McCandless (and his blog here:
> https://www.elastic.co/blog/lucenes-handling-of-deleted-documents).
> Especially in the current era of very large indexes in aggregate, (think many
> TB) solutions like "you need to distribute your collection over more shards"
> become very costly. Additionally, the tempting "optimize" button exacerbates
> the issue since once you form, say, a 100G segment (by
> optimizing/forceMerging) it is not eligible for merging until 97.5G of the
> docs in it are deleted (current default 5G max segment size).
> The proposal here would be to add a new parameter to TMP, something like
> <maxAllowedPctDeletedInBigSegments> (no, that's not serious name, suggestions
> welcome) which would default to 100 (or the same behavior we have now).
> So if I set this parameter to, say, 20%, and the max segment size stays at
> 5G, the following would happen when segments were selected for merging:
> > any segment with > 20% deleted documents would be merged or rewritten NO
> > MATTER HOW LARGE. There are two cases,
> >> the segment has < 5G "live" docs. In that case it would be merged with
> >> smaller segments to bring the resulting segment up to 5G. If no smaller
> >> segments exist, it would just be rewritten
> >> The segment has > 5G "live" docs (the result of a forceMerge or optimize).
> >> It would be rewritten into a single segment removing all deleted docs no
> >> matter how big it is to start. The 100G example above would be rewritten
> >> to an 80G segment for instance.
> Of course this would lead to potentially much more I/O which is why the
> default would be the same behavior we see now. As it stands now, though,
> there's no way to recover from an optimize/forceMerge except to re-index from
> scratch. We routinely see 200G-300G Lucene indexes at this point "in the
> wild" with 10s of shards replicated 3 or more times. And that doesn't even
> include having these over HDFS.
> Alternatives welcome! Something like the above seems minimally invasive. A
> new merge policy is certainly an alternative.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.4.14#64029)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
