well, I did start, optimistically, but I think I need to re-spin to include a fix for this test failure that has been popping up, so I will pull these in too.
On Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 6:24 AM Adrien Grand <jpou...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Mike, > > If you have not started a RC yet, I'd like to include some small fixes for > bugs that were recently introduced in Lucene: > - https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/11792 > - https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/11794 > > On Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 1:26 AM Julie Tibshirani <juliet...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Sorry for the confusion. To explain, I use a local ann-benchmarks set-up >> that makes use of KnnGraphTester. It is a bit hacky and I accidentally >> included the warm-ups in the final timings. So the change to warm-up >> explains why we saw different results in our tests. This is great >> motivation to solidify and publish my local ann-benchmarks set-up so that >> it's not so fragile! >> >> In summary, with your latest fix the recall and QPS look good to me -- I >> don't detect any regression between 9.3 and 9.4. >> >> Julie >> >> On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 3:45 PM Michael Sokolov <msoko...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> I'm confused, since warming should not be counted in the timings. Are >>> you saying that the recall was affected?? >>> >>> On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 6:12 PM Julie Tibshirani <juliet...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Using the ann-benchmarks framework, I still saw a similar regression as >>>> Mayya between 9.3 and 9.4. I investigated and found it was due to >>>> "KnnGraphTester to use KnnVectorQuery" ( >>>> https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/796), specifically the change to >>>> the warm-up strategy. If I revert it, the results look exactly as expected. >>>> >>>> I guess we can keep an eye on the nightly benchmarks tomorrow to >>>> double-check there's no drop. It would also be nice to formalize the >>>> ann-benchmarks set-up and run it regularly (like we've discussed in >>>> https://github.com/apache/lucene/issues/10665). >>>> >>>> Julie >>>> >>>> On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 10:33 AM Michael Sokolov <msoko...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Thanks for your speedy testing! I am observing comparable latencies >>>>> *when the index geometry (ie number of segments)* is unchanged. Agree we >>>>> can leave this for a later day. I'll proceed to cut 9.4 artifacts >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 11:02 AM Mayya Sharipova >>>>> <mayya.sharip...@elastic.co.invalid> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> It would be great if you all are able to test again with >>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/11781/ applied >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I ran the ann benchmarks with this change, and was happy to confirm >>>>>> that in my test recall with this PR is the same as in 9.3 branch, >>>>>> although >>>>>> QPS is lower, but we can investigate QPSs later. >>>>>> >>>>>> glove-100-angular M:16 efConstruction:100 >>>>>> 9.3 recall9.3 QPSthis PR recallthis PR QPS >>>>>> n_cands=10 0.620 2745.933 0.620 1675.500 >>>>>> n_cands=20 0.680 2288.665 0.680 1512.744 >>>>>> n_cands=40 0.746 1770.243 0.746 1040.240 >>>>>> n_cands=80 0.809 1226.738 0.809 695.236 >>>>>> n_cands=120 0.843 948.908 0.843 525.914 >>>>>> n_cands=200 0.878 671.781 0.878 351.529 >>>>>> n_cands=400 0.918 392.265 0.918 207.854 >>>>>> n_cands=600 0.937 282.403 0.937 144.311 >>>>>> n_cands=800 0.949 214.620 0.949 116.875 >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sun, Sep 18, 2022 at 6:25 PM Michael Sokolov <msoko...@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> OK, I think I was wrong about latency having increased due to a >>>>>>> change >>>>>>> in KnnGraphTester -- I did some testing there and couldn't reproduce. >>>>>>> There does seem to be a slight vector search latency increase, >>>>>>> possibly noise, but maybe due to the branching introduced to check >>>>>>> whether to do byte vs float operations? It would be a little >>>>>>> surprising if that were the case given the small number of branchings >>>>>>> compared to the number of multiplies in dot-product though. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sun, Sep 18, 2022 at 3:25 PM Michael Sokolov <msoko...@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > Thanks for the deep-dive Julie. I was able to reproduce the >>>>>>> changing >>>>>>> > recall. I had introduced some bugs in the diversity checks (that >>>>>>> may >>>>>>> > have partially canceled each other out? it's hard to understand >>>>>>> what >>>>>>> > was happening in the buggy case) and posted a fix today >>>>>>> > https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/11781. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > There are a couple of other outstanding issues I found while doing >>>>>>> a >>>>>>> > bunch of git bisecting; >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > I think we might have introduced a (test-only) performance >>>>>>> regression >>>>>>> > in KnnGraphTester >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > We may still be over-allocating the size of NeighborArray, leading >>>>>>> to >>>>>>> > excessive segmentation? I wonder if we could avoid dynamic >>>>>>> > re-allocation there, and simply initialize every neighbor array to >>>>>>> > 2*M+1. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > While I don't think these are necessarily blockers, given that we >>>>>>> are >>>>>>> > releasing HNSW improvements, it seems like we should address these, >>>>>>> > especially as the build-graph-on-index is one of the things we are >>>>>>> > releasing, and it is (may be?) impacted. I will see if I can put >>>>>>> up a >>>>>>> > patch or two. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > It would be great if you all are able to test again with >>>>>>> > https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/11781/ applied >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > -Mike >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 11:07 AM Adrien Grand <jpou...@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > Thank you Mike, I just backported the change. >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > On Thu, Sep 15, 2022 at 6:32 PM Michael Sokolov < >>>>>>> msoko...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> > >> it looks like a small bug fix, we have had on main (and 9.x?) >>>>>>> for a >>>>>>> > >> while now and no test failures showed up, I guess. Should be OK >>>>>>> to >>>>>>> > >> port. I plan to cut artifacts this weekend, or Monday at the >>>>>>> latest, >>>>>>> > >> but if you can do the backport today or tomorrow, that's fine >>>>>>> by me. >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> > >> On Thu, Sep 15, 2022 at 10:55 AM Adrien Grand < >>>>>>> jpou...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> > >> > >>>>>>> > >> > Mike, I'm tempted to backport >>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/1068 to branch_9_4, which is >>>>>>> a bugfix that looks pretty safe to me. What do you think? >>>>>>> > >> > >>>>>>> > >> > On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 4:11 PM Mayya Sharipova < >>>>>>> mayya.sharip...@elastic.co.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>> > >> >> >>>>>>> > >> >> Thanks for running more tests, Michael. >>>>>>> > >> >> It is encouraging that you saw a similar performance between >>>>>>> 9.3 and 9.4. I will also run more tests with different parameters. >>>>>>> > >> >> >>>>>>> > >> >> On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 9:30 AM Michael Sokolov < >>>>>>> msoko...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> > >> >>> >>>>>>> > >> >>> As a follow-up, I ran a test using the same parameters as >>>>>>> above, only >>>>>>> > >> >>> changing M=200 to M=16. This did result in a single segment >>>>>>> in both >>>>>>> > >> >>> cases (9.3, 9.4) and the performance was pretty similar; >>>>>>> within noise >>>>>>> > >> >>> I think. The main difference I saw was that the 9.3 index >>>>>>> was written >>>>>>> > >> >>> using CFS: >>>>>>> > >> >>> >>>>>>> > >> >>> 9.4: >>>>>>> > >> >>> recall latency nDoc fanout maxConn beamWidth >>>>>>> visited index ms >>>>>>> > >> >>> 0.755 1.36 1000000 100 16 100 200 >>>>>>> 891402 1.00 >>>>>>> > >> >>> post-filter >>>>>>> > >> >>> -rw-r--r-- 1 sokolovm amazon 382M Sep 13 13:06 >>>>>>> > >> >>> _0_Lucene94HnswVectorsFormat_0.vec >>>>>>> > >> >>> -rw-r--r-- 1 sokolovm amazon 262K Sep 13 13:06 >>>>>>> > >> >>> _0_Lucene94HnswVectorsFormat_0.vem >>>>>>> > >> >>> -rw-r--r-- 1 sokolovm amazon 131M Sep 13 13:06 >>>>>>> > >> >>> _0_Lucene94HnswVectorsFormat_0.vex >>>>>>> > >> >>> >>>>>>> > >> >>> 9.3: >>>>>>> > >> >>> recall latency nDoc fanout maxConn beamWidth >>>>>>> visited index ms >>>>>>> > >> >>> 0.775 1.34 1000000 100 16 100 4033 >>>>>>> 977043 >>>>>>> > >> >>> rw-r--r-- 1 sokolovm amazon 297 Sep 13 13:26 _0.cfe >>>>>>> > >> >>> -rw-r--r-- 1 sokolovm amazon 516M Sep 13 13:26 _0.cfs >>>>>>> > >> >>> -rw-r--r-- 1 sokolovm amazon 340 Sep 13 13:26 _0.si >>>>>>> > >> >>> >>>>>>> > >> >>> On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 8:50 AM Michael Sokolov < >>>>>>> msoko...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> > >> >>> > >>>>>>> > >> >>> > I ran another test. I thought I had increased the RAM >>>>>>> buffer size to >>>>>>> > >> >>> > 8G and heap to 16G. However I still see two segments in >>>>>>> the index that >>>>>>> > >> >>> > was created. And looking at the infostream I see: >>>>>>> > >> >>> > >>>>>>> > >> >>> > dir=MMapDirectory@ >>>>>>> /local/home/sokolovm/workspace/knn-perf/glove-100-angular.hdf5-train-200-200.index >>>>>>> > >> >>> > lockFactory=org\ >>>>>>> > >> >>> > .apache.lucene.store.NativeFSLockFactory@4466af20 >>>>>>> > >> >>> > index= >>>>>>> > >> >>> > version=9.4.0 >>>>>>> > >> >>> > >>>>>>> analyzer=org.apache.lucene.analysis.standard.StandardAnalyzer >>>>>>> > >> >>> > ramBufferSizeMB=8000.0 >>>>>>> > >> >>> > maxBufferedDocs=-1 >>>>>>> > >> >>> > ... >>>>>>> > >> >>> > perThreadHardLimitMB=1945 >>>>>>> > >> >>> > ... >>>>>>> > >> >>> > DWPT 0 [2022-09-13T02:42:53.329404950Z; main]: flush >>>>>>> postings as >>>>>>> > >> >>> > segment _6 numDocs=555373 >>>>>>> > >> >>> > IW 0 [2022-09-13T02:42:53.330671171Z; main]: 0 msec to >>>>>>> write norms >>>>>>> > >> >>> > IW 0 [2022-09-13T02:42:53.331113184Z; main]: 0 msec to >>>>>>> write docValues >>>>>>> > >> >>> > IW 0 [2022-09-13T02:42:53.331320146Z; main]: 0 msec to >>>>>>> write points >>>>>>> > >> >>> > IW 0 [2022-09-13T02:42:56.424195657Z; main]: 3092 msec to >>>>>>> write vectors >>>>>>> > >> >>> > IW 0 [2022-09-13T02:42:56.429239944Z; main]: 4 msec to >>>>>>> finish stored fields >>>>>>> > >> >>> > IW 0 [2022-09-13T02:42:56.429593512Z; main]: 0 msec to >>>>>>> write postings >>>>>>> > >> >>> > and finish vectors >>>>>>> > >> >>> > IW 0 [2022-09-13T02:42:56.430309031Z; main]: 0 msec to >>>>>>> write fieldInfos >>>>>>> > >> >>> > DWPT 0 [2022-09-13T02:42:56.431721622Z; main]: new >>>>>>> segment has 0 deleted docs >>>>>>> > >> >>> > DWPT 0 [2022-09-13T02:42:56.431921144Z; main]: new >>>>>>> segment has 0 >>>>>>> > >> >>> > soft-deleted docs >>>>>>> > >> >>> > DWPT 0 [2022-09-13T02:42:56.435738086Z; main]: new >>>>>>> segment has no >>>>>>> > >> >>> > vectors; no norms; no docValues; no prox; freqs >>>>>>> > >> >>> > DWPT 0 [2022-09-13T02:42:56.435952356Z; main]: >>>>>>> > >> >>> > flushedFiles=[_6_Lucene94HnswVectorsFormat_0.vec, _6.fdm, >>>>>>> _6.fdt, _6_\ >>>>>>> > >> >>> > Lucene94HnswVectorsFormat_0.vem, _6.fnm, _6.fdx, >>>>>>> > >> >>> > _6_Lucene94HnswVectorsFormat_0.vex] >>>>>>> > >> >>> > DWPT 0 [2022-09-13T02:42:56.436121861Z; main]: flushed >>>>>>> codec=Lucene94 >>>>>>> > >> >>> > DWPT 0 [2022-09-13T02:42:56.437691468Z; main]: flushed: >>>>>>> segment=_6 >>>>>>> > >> >>> > ramUsed=1,945.002 MB newFlushedSize=1,065.701 MB \ >>>>>>> > >> >>> > docs/MB=521.134 >>>>>>> > >> >>> > >>>>>>> > >> >>> > so I think it's this perThreadHardLimit that is >>>>>>> triggering the >>>>>>> > >> >>> > flushes? TBH this isn't something I had seen before; but >>>>>>> the docs say: >>>>>>> > >> >>> > >>>>>>> > >> >>> > /** >>>>>>> > >> >>> > * Expert: Sets the maximum memory consumption per >>>>>>> thread triggering >>>>>>> > >> >>> > a forced flush if exceeded. A >>>>>>> > >> >>> > * {@link DocumentsWriterPerThread} is forcefully >>>>>>> flushed once it >>>>>>> > >> >>> > exceeds this limit even if the >>>>>>> > >> >>> > * {@link #getRAMBufferSizeMB()} has not been exceeded. >>>>>>> This is a >>>>>>> > >> >>> > safety limit to prevent a {@link >>>>>>> > >> >>> > * DocumentsWriterPerThread} from address space >>>>>>> exhaustion due to >>>>>>> > >> >>> > its internal 32 bit signed >>>>>>> > >> >>> > * integer based memory addressing. The given value >>>>>>> must be less >>>>>>> > >> >>> > that 2GB (2048MB) >>>>>>> > >> >>> > * >>>>>>> > >> >>> > * @see #DEFAULT_RAM_PER_THREAD_HARD_LIMIT_MB >>>>>>> > >> >>> > */ >>>>>>> > >> >>> > >>>>>>> > >> >>> > On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 6:28 PM Michael Sokolov < >>>>>>> msoko...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> > >> >>> > > >>>>>>> > >> >>> > > Hi Mayya, thanks for persisting - I think we need to >>>>>>> wrestle this to >>>>>>> > >> >>> > > the ground for sure. In the test I ran, RAM buffer was >>>>>>> the default >>>>>>> > >> >>> > > checked in, which is weirdly: 1994MB. I did not >>>>>>> specifically set heap >>>>>>> > >> >>> > > size. I used maxConn/M=200. I'll try with larger >>>>>>> buffer to see if I >>>>>>> > >> >>> > > can get 9.4 to produce a single segment for the same >>>>>>> test settings. I >>>>>>> > >> >>> > > see you used a much smaller M (16), which should have >>>>>>> produced quite >>>>>>> > >> >>> > > small graphs, and I agree, should have been a single >>>>>>> segment. Were you >>>>>>> > >> >>> > > able to verify the number of segments? >>>>>>> > >> >>> > > >>>>>>> > >> >>> > > Agree that decrease in recall is not expected when more >>>>>>> segments are produced. >>>>>>> > >> >>> > > >>>>>>> > >> >>> > > On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 1:51 PM Mayya Sharipova >>>>>>> > >> >>> > > <mayya.sharip...@elastic.co.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>> > >> >>> > > > >>>>>>> > >> >>> > > > Hello Michael, >>>>>>> > >> >>> > > > Thanks for checking. >>>>>>> > >> >>> > > > Sorry for bringing this up again. >>>>>>> > >> >>> > > > First of all, I am ok with proceeding with the Lucene >>>>>>> 9.4 release and leaving the performance investigations for later. >>>>>>> > >> >>> > > > >>>>>>> > >> >>> > > > I am interested in what's the maxConn/M value you >>>>>>> used for your tests? What was the heap memory and the size of the RAM >>>>>>> buffer for indexing? >>>>>>> > >> >>> > > > Usually, when we have multiple segments, recall >>>>>>> should increase, not decrease. But I agree that with multiple segments >>>>>>> we >>>>>>> can see a big drop in QPS. >>>>>>> > >> >>> > > > >>>>>>> > >> >>> > > > Here is my investigation with detailed output of the >>>>>>> performance difference between 9.3 and 9.4 releases. In my tests I used >>>>>>> a >>>>>>> large indexing buffer (2Gb) and large heap (5Gb) to end up with a single >>>>>>> segment for both 9.3 and 9.4 tests, but still see a big drop in QPS in >>>>>>> 9.4. >>>>>>> > >> >>> > > > >>>>>>> > >> >>> > > > Thank you. >>>>>>> > >> >>> > > > >>>>>>> > >> >>> > > > >>>>>>> > >> >>> > > > >>>>>>> > >> >>> > > > >>>>>>> > >> >>> > > > >>>>>>> > >> >>> > > > On Fri, Sep 9, 2022 at 12:21 PM Alan Woodward < >>>>>>> romseyg...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> > >> >>> > > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>> > > >> Done. Thanks! >>>>>>> > >> >>> > > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>> > > >> > On 9 Sep 2022, at 16:32, Michael Sokolov < >>>>>>> msoko...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> > >> >>> > > >> > >>>>>>> > >> >>> > > >> > Hi Alan - I checked out the interval queries >>>>>>> patch; seems pretty safe, >>>>>>> > >> >>> > > >> > please go ahead and port to 9.4. Thanks! >>>>>>> > >> >>> > > >> > >>>>>>> > >> >>> > > >> > Mike >>>>>>> > >> >>> > > >> > >>>>>>> > >> >>> > > >> > On Fri, Sep 9, 2022 at 10:41 AM Alan Woodward < >>>>>>> romseyg...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> > >> >>> > > >> >> >>>>>>> > >> >>> > > >> >> Hi Mike, >>>>>>> > >> >>> > > >> >> >>>>>>> > >> >>> > > >> >> I’ve opened >>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/11760 as a small bug fix PR >>>>>>> for a problem with interval queries. Am I OK to port this to the 9.4 >>>>>>> branch? >>>>>>> > >> >>> > > >> >> >>>>>>> > >> >>> > > >> >> Thanks, Alan >>>>>>> > >> >>> > > >> >> >>>>>>> > >> >>> > > >> >> On 2 Sep 2022, at 20:42, Michael Sokolov < >>>>>>> msoko...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> > >> >>> > > >> >> >>>>>>> > >> >>> > > >> >> NOTICE: >>>>>>> > >> >>> > > >> >> >>>>>>> > >> >>> > > >> >> Branch branch_9_4 has been cut and versions >>>>>>> updated to 9.5 on stable branch. >>>>>>> > >> >>> > > >> >> >>>>>>> > >> >>> > > >> >> Please observe the normal rules: >>>>>>> > >> >>> > > >> >> >>>>>>> > >> >>> > > >> >> * No new features may be committed to the branch. >>>>>>> > >> >>> > > >> >> * Documentation patches, build patches and >>>>>>> serious bug fixes may be >>>>>>> > >> >>> > > >> >> committed to the branch. However, you should >>>>>>> submit all patches you >>>>>>> > >> >>> > > >> >> want to commit to Jira first to give others the >>>>>>> chance to review >>>>>>> > >> >>> > > >> >> and possibly vote against the patch. Keep in mind >>>>>>> that it is our >>>>>>> > >> >>> > > >> >> main intention to keep the branch as stable as >>>>>>> possible. >>>>>>> > >> >>> > > >> >> * All patches that are intended for the branch >>>>>>> should first be committed >>>>>>> > >> >>> > > >> >> to the unstable branch, merged into the stable >>>>>>> branch, and then into >>>>>>> > >> >>> > > >> >> the current release branch. >>>>>>> > >> >>> > > >> >> * Normal unstable and stable branch development >>>>>>> may continue as usual. >>>>>>> > >> >>> > > >> >> However, if you plan to commit a big change to >>>>>>> the unstable branch >>>>>>> > >> >>> > > >> >> while the branch feature freeze is in effect, >>>>>>> think twice: can't the >>>>>>> > >> >>> > > >> >> addition wait a couple more days? Merges of bug >>>>>>> fixes into the branch >>>>>>> > >> >>> > > >> >> may become more difficult. >>>>>>> > >> >>> > > >> >> * Only Jira issues with Fix version 9.4 and >>>>>>> priority "Blocker" will delay >>>>>>> > >> >>> > > >> >> a release candidate build. >>>>>>> > >> >>> > > >> >> >>>>>>> > >> >>> > > >> >> >>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>> > >> >>> > > >> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: >>>>>>> dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org >>>>>>> > >> >>> > > >> >> For additional commands, e-mail: >>>>>>> dev-h...@lucene.apache.org >>>>>>> > >> >>> > > >> >> >>>>>>> > >> >>> > > >> >> >>>>>>> > >> >>> > > >> > >>>>>>> > >> >>> > > >> > >>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>> > >> >>> > > >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: >>>>>>> dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org >>>>>>> > >> >>> > > >> > For additional commands, e-mail: >>>>>>> dev-h...@lucene.apache.org >>>>>>> > >> >>> > > >> > >>>>>>> > >> >>> > > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>> > > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>> > > >> >>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>> > >> >>> > > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: >>>>>>> dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org >>>>>>> > >> >>> > > >> For additional commands, e-mail: >>>>>>> dev-h...@lucene.apache.org >>>>>>> > >> >>> > > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>> >>>>>>> > >> >>> >>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>> > >> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org >>>>>>> > >> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org >>>>>>> > >> >>> >>>>>>> > >> > >>>>>>> > >> > >>>>>>> > >> > -- >>>>>>> > >> > Adrien >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>> > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org >>>>>>> > >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > -- >>>>>>> > > Adrien >>>>>>> >>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org >>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > > -- > Adrien >
