[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-8585?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16719167#comment-16719167
]
Adrien Grand commented on LUCENE-8585:
--------------------------------------
Thanks Toke, I'll give it a look by the end of the week.
bq. I could make it switch from 300 to 200,000 when running Nightly or I could
hand-pick some of the tests and increase documents for them, which would mean
worse coverage but better speed?
This trade-off is hard indeed. We should try to optimize coverage while keeping
the test reasonably fast, I guess it should run in under 10 seconds or so.
Maybe there are things that we can improve in tests that are dedicated for the
sparse case, such as avoiding tiny flushes or too aggressive merge settings.
> Create jump-tables for DocValues at index-time
> ----------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-8585
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-8585
> Project: Lucene - Core
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: core/codecs
> Affects Versions: master (8.0)
> Reporter: Toke Eskildsen
> Priority: Minor
> Labels: performance
> Attachments: LUCENE-8585.patch, LUCENE-8585.patch,
> make_patch_lucene8585.sh
>
> Time Spent: 10m
> Remaining Estimate: 0h
>
> As noted in LUCENE-7589, lookup of DocValues should use jump-tables to avoid
> long iterative walks. This is implemented in LUCENE-8374 at search-time
> (first request for DocValues from a field in a segment), with the benefit of
> working without changes to existing Lucene 7 indexes and the downside of
> introducing a startup time penalty and a memory overhead.
> As discussed in LUCENE-8374, the codec should be updated to create these
> jump-tables at index time. This eliminates the segment-open time & memory
> penalties, with the potential downside of increasing index-time for DocValues.
> The three elements of LUCENE-8374 should be transferable to index-time
> without much alteration of the core structures:
> * {{IndexedDISI}} block offset and index skips: A {{long}} (64 bits) for
> every 65536 documents, containing the offset of the block in 33 bits and the
> index (number of set bits) up to the block in 31 bits.
> It can be build sequentially and should be stored as a simple sequence of
> consecutive longs for caching of lookups.
> As it is fairly small, relative to document count, it might be better to
> simply memory cache it?
> * {{IndexedDISI}} DENSE (> 4095, < 65536 set bits) blocks: A {{short}} (16
> bits) for every 8 {{longs}} (512 bits) for a total of 256 bytes/DENSE_block.
> Each {{short}} represents the number of set bits up to right before the
> corresponding sub-block of 512 docIDs.
> The \{{shorts}} can be computed sequentially or when the DENSE block is
> flushed (probably the easiest). They should be stored as a simple sequence of
> consecutive shorts for caching of lookups, one logically independent sequence
> for each DENSE block. The logical position would be one sequence at the start
> of every DENSE block.
> Whether it is best to read all the 16 {{shorts}} up front when a DENSE block
> is accessed or whether it is best to only read any individual {{short}} when
> needed is not clear at this point.
> * Variable Bits Per Value: A {{long}} (64 bits) for every 16384 numeric
> values. Each {{long}} holds the offset to the corresponding block of values.
> The offsets can be computed sequentially and should be stored as a simple
> sequence of consecutive {{longs}} for caching of lookups.
> The vBPV-offsets has the largest space overhead og the 3 jump-tables and a
> lot of the 64 bits in each long are not used for most indexes. They could be
> represented as a simple {{PackedInts}} sequence or {{MonotonicLongValues}},
> with the downsides of a potential lookup-time overhead and the need for doing
> the compression after all offsets has been determined.
> I have no experience with the codec-parts responsible for creating
> index-structures. I'm quite willing to take a stab at this, although I
> probably won't do much about it before January 2019. Should anyone else wish
> to adopt this JIRA-issue or co-work on it, I'll be happy to share.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
