Actually, I had wondered if this is a proper vote thread or not, normally those are yes/no on a single option.
On Tue, May 16, 2023 at 10:47 AM Alessandro Benedetti <a.benede...@sease.io> wrote: > Hi Marcus, > I am afraid at this stage Robert's opinion counts just as any other > opinion, a single vote for option 1. > We are collecting a community's feedback here, we are not changing any > code nor voting for a yes/no. > Once the voting is finished, we'll operate an action depending on the > community's choice. > If the action involves making a change and someone(Robert or whoever) > feels to veto it, he/she will need to motivate the veto with technical > merit. > > In response to Uwe point: > >> >>> On Tue, May 16, 2023 at 9:57 AM Uwe Schindler <u...@thetaphi.de> wrote: >>> >>>> I agree with Dawid, >>>> >>>> I am +1 for those two options in combination: >>>> >>>> - option 3 (make limit an HNSW specific thing). New formats may use >>>> other limits (lower or higher). >>>> - option 4 (make a system property with HNSW prefix). Adding the >>>> system property must be done in same way like new properties for MMAP >>>> directory (including access controller) so it can be denied by system >>>> admin >>>> to be set in code (see >>>> >>>> https://github.com/apache/lucene/blob/f53eb28af053d7612f7e4d1b2de05d33dc410645/lucene/core/src/java/org/apache/lucene/store/MMapDirectory.java#L327-L346 >>>> for example). Care has to be taken that the static initializers won't >>>> fail >>>> is system properties cannot be read/set (system adminitrator enforces >>>> default -> see mmap code). It also has to be made sure that an index >>>> written with raised limit can still be read without the limit, so the >>>> limit >>>> should not be glued into the file format. Otherwise I disagree with >>>> option >>>> 4. >>>> >>>> In short: I am fine with making it configurable only for HNSW if the >>>> limit is not glued into index format. The default should only be there to >>>> by default prevent people from doing wrong things, but changing default >>>> should not break reading/modifiying those indexes. >>>> >>>> Uwe >>>> >>>> Thanks Uwe, that's very useful! > Just to fully understand it, right now the limit is not written in any > file format, so you just want this behavior to be maintained right? > > -- http://www.needhamsoftware.com (work) http://www.the111shift.com (play)
