[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-9663?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17278966#comment-17278966 ]
Bruno Roustant commented on LUCENE-9663: ---------------------------------------- The latest PR looks good. I'm going to merge it in a couple of days if there is no objection. [~Jaison] you may want to open another Jira issue if you want to propose more configuration for the compression (and you can link it to this issue). > Adding compression to terms dict from SortedSet/Sorted DocValues > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: LUCENE-9663 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-9663 > Project: Lucene - Core > Issue Type: Improvement > Components: core/codecs > Reporter: Jaison.Bi > Priority: Trivial > Fix For: master (9.0) > > Time Spent: 8h 40m > Remaining Estimate: 0h > > Elasticsearch keyword field uses SortedSet DocValues. In our applications, > “keyword” is the most frequently used field type. > LUCENE-7081 has done prefix-compression for docvalues terms dict. We can do > better by replacing prefix-compression with LZ4. In one of our application, > the dvd files were ~41% smaller with this change(from 1.95 GB to 1.15 GB). > I've done simple tests based on the real application data, comparing the > write/merge time cost, and the on-disk *.dvd file size(after merge into 1 > segment). > || ||Before||After|| > |Write time cost(ms)|591972|618200| > |Merge time cost(ms)|270661|294663| > |*.dvd file size(GB)|1.95|1.15| > This feature is only for the high-cardinality fields. > I'm doing the benchmark test based on luceneutil. Will attach the report and > patch after the test. -- This message was sent by Atlassian Jira (v8.3.4#803005) --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: issues-h...@lucene.apache.org