I never said finding oneself in this position was the result of careful planning and flawless execution <G>. But that's the reality some of our users will find themselves in.
Even worse... *I* may find myself in that position because of a decision someone *else* made before they were fired..... Erick On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 10:18 AM, Mark Miller <markrmil...@gmail.com> wrote: > If you absolutely cannot re-index, and you have *no* access to the data > again - you are one ballsy mofo to upgrade to a new version of Lucene for > "features". It means you likely BASE jump in your free time? > > > On 04/15/2010 10:14 AM, Erick Erickson wrote: > >> Coming in late to the discussion, and without really understanding the >> underlying Lucene issues, but... >> >> The size of the problem of reindexing is under-appreciated I think. >> Somewhere >> in my company is the original data I indexed. But the effort it would take >> to >> resurrect it is O(unknown). An unfortunate reality of commercial products >> is >> that the often receive very little love for extended periods of time until >> all of >> the sudden more work is required. There ensues an extended period of >> re-orientation, even if the people who originally worked on the project >> are still >> around. >> >> *Assuming* the data is available to reindex (and there are many reasons >> besides poor practice on the part of the company that it may not be), >> remembering/finding out exactly which of the various backups you made >> of the original data is the one that's actually in your product can be >> highly >> non-trivial. Compounded by the fact that the product manager will be >> adamant about "Do NOT surprise our customers". >> >> So I can be in a spot of saying "I *think* I have the original data set, >> and I >> *think* I have the original code used to index it, and if I get a new >> version of >> Lucene I *think* I can recreate the index and I *think* that the user will >> see >> the expected change. After all that effort is completed, I *think* we'll >> see the >> expected changes, but we won't know until we try it" puts me in a very >> precarious position. >> >> This assumes that I have a reasonable chance of getting the original data. >> But >> say I've been indexing data from a live feed. Sure as hell hope I stored >> the >> data somewhere, because going back to the source and saying "please resend >> me 10 years worth of data that I have in my index" is...er...hard. Or say >> that the original provider has gone out of business, or the licensing >> arrangement >> specifies a one-time transmission of data that may not be retained in its >> original >> form or..... >> >> The point of this long diatribe is that there are many reasons why >> reindexing is >> impossible and/or impractical. Making any decision that requires >> reindexing for >> a new version is locking a user into a version potentially forever. We >> should not >> underestimate how painful that can be and should never think that "just >> reindex" >> is acceptable in all situations. It's not. Period. >> >> Be very clear that some number of Lucene users will absolutely not be able >> to reindex. We may still make a decision that requires this, but let's >> make it >> without deluding ourselves that it's a possible solution for everyone. >> >> So an upgrade tool seems like a reasonable compromise. I agree that being >> hampered in what we can develop in Lucene by having to accomodate >> reading old indexes slows new features etc. It's always nice to be >> able to work without dealing with pesky legacy issues <G>. Perhaps >> splitting out the indexing upgrades into a separate program lets us >> accommodate both concerns. >> >> FWIW >> Erick >> >> On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 9:42 AM, Danil ŢORIN <torin...@gmail.com <mailto: >> torin...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> True. Just need the tool. >> >> On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 16:39, Earwin Burrfoot <ear...@gmail.com >> <mailto:ear...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> > >> > On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 17:17, Yonik Seeley >> <yo...@lucidimagination.com <mailto:yo...@lucidimagination.com>> >> >> wrote: >> > > Seamless online upgrades have their place too... say you are >> upgrading >> > > one server at a time in a cluster. >> > >> > Nothing here that can't be solved with an upgrade tool. Down one >> > server, upgrade index, upgrade sofware, up. >> > >> > -- >> > Kirill Zakharenko/Кирилл Захаренко (ear...@gmail.com >> <mailto:ear...@gmail.com>) >> >> > Home / Mobile: +7 (495) 683-567-4 / +7 (903) 5-888-423 >> > ICQ: 104465785 >> > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org >> <mailto:java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org> >> >> > For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org >> <mailto:java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org> >> >> > >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org >> <mailto:java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org> >> >> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org >> <mailto:java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org> >> >> >> > > -- > - Mark > > http://www.lucidimagination.com > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org > >
