[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2793?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13055649#comment-13055649
]
Simon Willnauer commented on LUCENE-2793:
-----------------------------------------
bq. Should IOContext and MergeInfo be in oal.store not .index?
+1
bq. I think SegmentMerger should receive an IOCtx from its caller, and
yeah I think we should pass the IOContext in via the ctor. Yet, for
IW#addIndexes you can simply build a best effort IOContext like:
{code}
for (IndexReader indexReader : readers) {
numDocs += indexReader.numDocs();
}
final IOContext context = new IOContext(new MergeInfo(numDocs, -1, true,
false));
}
bq. I think on flush IOContext should include num docs and estimated
+1 I think that is good no?
bq. Somehow, lucene/contrib/demo/data is deleted on the branch. We should check
if anything else is missing!
oh man... I will check
you use new IOContext(Context.FLUSH) and new IOContext(Context.READ) in your
patch but we have some static like IOContext.READ maybe we need FLUSH too?
for the tests I think we should start randomizing the IOContext. I think you
should add a newIOContext(Random random) to LuceneTestCase and get the context
from there in a unit test. At the end of the day we should see same behavior
whatever context you pass in right?
simon
> 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: core/store
> Reporter: Michael McCandless
> Assignee: Varun Thacker
> Labels: gsoc2011, lucene-gsoc-11, mentor
> Attachments: LUCENE-2793-nrt.patch, LUCENE-2793.patch,
> LUCENE-2793.patch, LUCENE-2793.patch, LUCENE-2793.patch, LUCENE-2793.patch,
> LUCENE-2793.patch, LUCENE-2793.patch, LUCENE-2793.patch, LUCENE-2793.patch,
> LUCENE-2793.patch, LUCENE-2793.patch, LUCENE-2793.patch, LUCENE-2793.patch,
> LUCENE-2793.patch, LUCENE-2793.patch, LUCENE-2793.patch, 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.
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
