[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-845?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12520344
]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-845:
-------------------------------------------
> > Here's an idea: maybe we can accept the O(N^2) merge cost, when
> > the segments are "small"?
>
> That's basically the underlying idea I was trying to get at.
Ahh, good! We agree :)
> If you "flush by RAM usage" then IndexWriter may over-merge
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-845
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-845
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Index
> Affects Versions: 2.1
> Reporter: Michael McCandless
> Assignee: Michael McCandless
> Priority: Minor
> Attachments: LUCENE-845.patch
>
>
> I think a good way to maximize performance of Lucene's indexing for a
> given amount of RAM is to flush (writer.flush()) the added documents
> whenever the RAM usage (writer.ramSizeInBytes()) has crossed the max
> RAM you can afford.
> But, this can confuse the merge policy and cause over-merging, unless
> you set maxBufferedDocs properly.
> This is because the merge policy looks at the current maxBufferedDocs
> to figure out which segments are level 0 (first flushed) or level 1
> (merged from <mergeFactor> level 0 segments).
> I'm not sure how to fix this. Maybe we can look at net size (bytes)
> of a segment and "infer" level from this? Still we would have to be
> resilient to the application suddenly increasing the RAM allowed.
> The good news is to workaround this bug I think you just need to
> ensure that your maxBufferedDocs is less than mergeFactor *
> typical-number-of-docs-flushed.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
