[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-7976?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16511517#comment-16511517
]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-7976:
--------------------------------------------
bq. I don't think so. Since this is common code, then it's quite possible that
during forceMerge we assemble some segments that have no deletes due to
maxMergeAtOnceExplicit that are still a fraction of maxMergedSegmentMB. These
segments are eligible next pass to be merged even though they have no deleted
documents. So we can't just omit them from the candidate up-front.
Ahhh, you are right! So let's leave it in.
{quote}
bq. I.e. change true to bestTooLarge?
I've no objection, but what's the functional difference? Just making sure
there's not a typo there.
{quote}
Oh duh not sure what I was thinking -- there would be no functional difference
;) OK maybe change to this?:
{noformat}
haveOneLargeMerge |= bestTooLarge;
{noformat}
{quote}
bq. I think this logic is buggy?
The more I look the more I think it's always been buggy. Or at least should be
restructured.
{quote}
Hmm I said *might be* buggy, but somehow when you quoted me it became *is*!
Anyway, the {{maxMergeIsRunning}} logic prevents picking a "max sized" merge if
the total bytes being merged across all running merges is >= the max merged
size, which I think is good. But I don't see where TMP is doing this same
thing? We do compute {{mergingBytes}}, and pass it to {{score}} but otherwise
seem not to use it?
> Make TieredMergePolicy respect maxSegmentSizeMB and allow singleton merges of
> very large segments
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-7976
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-7976
> Project: Lucene - Core
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Erick Erickson
> Assignee: Erick Erickson
> Priority: Major
> Attachments: LUCENE-7976.patch, LUCENE-7976.patch, LUCENE-7976.patch,
> LUCENE-7976.patch, LUCENE-7976.patch, LUCENE-7976.patch, LUCENE-7976.patch,
> LUCENE-7976.patch, LUCENE-7976.patch, LUCENE-7976.patch, LUCENE-7976.patch,
> LUCENE-7976.patch, SOLR-7976.patch
>
>
> 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
(v7.6.3#76005)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
