[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-9662?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17410031#comment-17410031
]
Zach Chen commented on LUCENE-9662:
-----------------------------------
Hi [~mikemccand], I've tried to backport these changes to 8x earlier, but
noticed that since changes in this PR touched many places in CheckIndex (the
replacement of *RuntimeException* with *CheckIndexException* in particular),
and some earlier commits that also touched on CheckIndex were not backported to
8x since they were intended for 9.0 release, the backporting I was trying
resulted into many merge conflicts. Although some of the conflicts were easy to
resolve, I'm a bit concerned that I may introduce subtle bugs when resolving
conflicts for others since I may not be familiar with those.
What do you think? Would you recommend we still try to backport these changes
to 8x?
> CheckIndex should be concurrent
> -------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-9662
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-9662
> Project: Lucene - Core
> Issue Type: Bug
> Reporter: Michael McCandless
> Priority: Major
> Time Spent: 18h 10m
> Remaining Estimate: 0h
>
> I am watching a nightly benchmark run slowly run its {{CheckIndex}} step,
> using a single core out of the 128 cores the box has.
> It seems like this is an embarrassingly parallel problem, if the index has
> multiple segments, and would finish much more quickly on concurrent hardware
> if we did "thread per segment".
> If wanted to get even further concurrency, each part of the Lucene index that
> is checked is also independent, so it could be "thread per segment per part".
--
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
