Hi,
this post is quite old, but I would like to share some recen developments.
I applied the recommandation. my process became: expunge deletes and
optimize 2 segments.
at the time I was with lucene 3.1 and that solved my issue. recently I
moved to lucene 3.3, and I tried playing with the new tiered merge policy.
what I found was that after an expunge, the number of deleted docs would
stay the same, and space would not be reclaimed on the disk. I switched
back to the default merge policy (LogByteSizeMergePolicy:
minMergeSize=1677721, mergeFactor=10, maxMergeSize=2147483648,
maxMergeSizeForOptimize=9223372036854775807, calibrateSizeByDeletes=true,
maxMergeDocs=2147483647, useCompoundFile=true, noCFSRatio=0.1) and got
this time the right behavior : size was reclaimed on disk. I even tried
with the BalancedSegmentMergePolicy and got again the right behavior.
so this issue seems to affect only the tiered merge policy.
to illustrate this, I took an index with many deleted docs then
expunged/optimized while using the tiered policy, then did the same thing
with a default merge policy. here is for each step the content of the
directory:
before:
09.09.2011 17:38 20 segments.gen
09.09.2011 17:38 5'335 segments_4bf1u
06.09.2011 15:27 0 write.lock
06.09.2011 00:49 31'681'157'794 _jhwld.fdt
06.09.2011 00:49 115'562'268 _jhwld.fdx
06.09.2011 00:37 5'347 _jhwld.fnm
06.09.2011 01:13 7'147'947'472 _jhwld.frq
06.09.2011 01:13 3'927'649'164 _jhwld.prx
06.09.2011 01:13 41'992'760 _jhwld.tii
06.09.2011 01:13 3'745'729'056 _jhwld.tis
09.09.2011 00:27 1'805'669 _jhwld_3.del
09.09.2011 00:31 11'397'619'448 _jtrwg.fdt
09.09.2011 00:31 98'393'316 _jtrwg.fdx
09.09.2011 00:27 5'347 _jtrwg.fnm
09.09.2011 00:47 5'146'273'732 _jtrwg.frq
09.09.2011 00:47 1'661'436'146 _jtrwg.prx
09.09.2011 00:47 23'950'194 _jtrwg.tii
09.09.2011 00:47 2'139'903'139 _jtrwg.tis
09.09.2011 07:39 94'471'867 _jugaa.cfs
09.09.2011 10:14 252'716'611 _juok2.cfs
09.09.2011 15:45 7'986'102 _jwuaq.cfs
09.09.2011 16:00 5'780'703 _jx45g.cfs
09.09.2011 16:00 333'981'384 _jx46a.cfs
09.09.2011 16:23 20'955'761 _jxge0.cfs
09.09.2011 16:46 19'258'025 _jxmas.cfs
09.09.2011 16:55 16'622'800 _jxpv4.cfs
09.09.2011 17:10 14'605'028 _jxvd6.cfs
09.09.2011 17:34 12'456'476 _jy28o.cfs
09.09.2011 17:38 2'584'950 _jy91y.cfs
09.09.2011 17:38 2'595'049 _jy92i.cfs
09.09.2011 17:38 2'600'991 _jy932.cfs
09.09.2011 17:38 2'610'278 _jy93m.cfs
09.09.2011 17:38 46'664 _jy93x.cfs
09.09.2011 17:38 9'765 _jy93y.cfs
09.09.2011 17:38 10'691 _jy93z.cfs
09.09.2011 17:38 9'533 _jy940.cfs
09.09.2011 17:38 11'684 _jy941.cfs
09.09.2011 17:38 8'996 _jy942.cfs
38 File(s) 67'918'759'565 bytes
after expunge/optimize (tiered merge policy):
09.09.2011 18:02 20 segments.gen
09.09.2011 18:02 3'171 segments_4bf3g
06.09.2011 15:27 0 write.lock
06.09.2011 00:49 31'681'157'794 _jhwld.fdt
06.09.2011 00:49 115'562'268 _jhwld.fdx
06.09.2011 00:37 5'347 _jhwld.fnm
06.09.2011 01:13 7'147'947'472 _jhwld.frq
06.09.2011 01:13 3'927'649'164 _jhwld.prx
06.09.2011 01:13 41'992'760 _jhwld.tii
06.09.2011 01:13 3'745'729'056 _jhwld.tis
09.09.2011 17:39 1'805'669 _jhwld_4.del
09.09.2011 17:45 11'814'367'373 _jy9iy.fdt
09.09.2011 17:45 101'565'036 _jy9iy.fdx
09.09.2011 17:39 5'347 _jy9iy.fnm
09.09.2011 18:01 5'328'530'169 _jy9iy.frq
09.09.2011 18:01 1'733'490'572 _jy9iy.prx
09.09.2011 18:01 25'072'713 _jy9iy.tii
09.09.2011 18:01 2'239'702'399 _jy9iy.tis
09.09.2011 18:02 185'962 _jy9mv.cfs
09.09.2011 18:02 9'955 _jy9mw.cfs
09.09.2011 18:02 10'380 _jy9mx.cfs
09.09.2011 18:02 9'341 _jy9my.cfs
09.09.2011 18:02 9'228 _jy9mz.cfs
09.09.2011 18:02 10'382 _jy9n0.cfs
09.09.2011 18:02 9'345 _jy9n1.cfs
09.09.2011 18:02 9'231 _jy9n2.cfs
09.09.2011 18:02 8'961 _jy9n3.cfs
09.09.2011 18:02 10'381 _jy9n4.cfs
09.09.2011 18:02 199'651 _jy9n5.cfs
09.09.2011 18:02 9'345 _jy9n6.cfs
09.09.2011 18:02 9'230 _jy9n7.cfs
31 File(s) 67'905'077'722 bytes
after expungeDeletes/optimize with default merge policy :
09.09.2011 19:31 20 segments.gen
09.09.2011 19:31 2'081 segments_4bfpe
09.09.2011 18:13 0 write.lock
09.09.2011 18:42 30'133'772'814 _jyb4c.fdt
09.09.2011 18:42 103'164'812 _jyb4c.fdx
09.09.2011 18:27 5'347 _jyb4c.fnm
09.09.2011 19:03 6'474'023'590 _jyb4c.frq
09.09.2011 19:03 3'699'406'141 _jyb4c.prx
09.09.2011 19:03 37'900'657 _jyb4c.tii
09.09.2011 19:03 3'380'266'875 _jyb4c.tis
09.09.2011 19:15 11'820'477'088 _jyb4e.fdt
09.09.2011 19:15 101'659'700 _jyb4e.fdx
09.09.2011 19:03 5'347 _jyb4e.fnm
09.09.2011 19:29 5'333'219'797 _jyb4e.frq
09.09.2011 19:29 1'734'633'179 _jyb4e.prx
09.09.2011 19:29 25'105'023 _jyb4e.tii
09.09.2011 19:29 2'242'558'333 _jyb4e.tis
09.09.2011 19:31 223'600 _jyb5t.cfs
09.09.2011 19:31 9'545 _jyb5u.cfs
09.09.2011 19:31 8'963 _jyb5v.cfs
09.09.2011 19:31 9'250 _jyb5w.cfs
09.09.2011 19:31 9'047 _jyb5x.cfs
09.09.2011 19:31 11'253 _jyb5y.cfs
09.09.2011 19:31 11'239 _jyb5z.cfs
24 File(s) 65'086'483'701 bytes
any clue to what is happenning?
thanks,
Vincent
"Uwe Schindler" <u...@thetaphi.de>
21.07.2011 22:46
Please respond to
java-user@lucene.apache.org
To
<java-user@lucene.apache.org>
cc
Subject
RE: optimize with num segments > 1 index keeps growing
There is also expungeDeletes()...
-----
Uwe Schindler
H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen
http://www.thetaphi.de
eMail: u...@thetaphi.de
> -----Original Message-----
> From: v.se...@lombardodier.com [mailto:v.se...@lombardodier.com]
> Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2011 8:39 PM
> To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: optimize with num segments > 1 index keeps growing
>
> Hi, thanks for this explanation.
> so what is the best solution: merge the large segment (how can I do
that)
or
> work with many segments (10?) so that I will avoid have this "large
segment"
> issue?
> thanks,
> vince
>
>
> Vincent Sevel
> Lombard Odier Darier Hentsch & Cie
> 11, rue de la Corraterie - 1204 Genève - Suisse T +41 22 709 3376 - F
+41
22 709
> 3782 www.lombardodier.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Simon Willnauer <simon.willna...@googlemail.com>
>
>
> 21.07.2011 20:06
> Please respond to
> java-user@lucene.apache.org
>
>
>
> To
> java-user@lucene.apache.org
> cc
>
> Subject
> Re: optimize with num segments > 1 index keeps growing
>
>
>
>
>
>
> so the problem here is that you have one really big segment _52aho.* and
> several smaller ones _7e0wz.*, _7e0xu.*, _7e1x5.* ....
> if you optimize to 2 segmetns all the smaller segments are merged into
one
> but all the large segment remains untouched. This means that all deleted
> documents in the large segment are not removed / freed while if you
> optimized to one segment they are removed. In the single seg.
> index there is no *.del file present meaning no deletes. Unless you
merge
> the large segment all you deleted documents are only marked as delete
but
> not yet removed.
>
> simon
>
> On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 5:50 PM, <v.se...@lombardodier.com> wrote:
> > hi,
> > closing after the 2 segments optimize does not change it.
> > also I am running with lucene 3.1.0.
> > cheers,
> > vince
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Ian Lea <ian....@gmail.com>
> >
> >
> > 21.07.2011 17:30
> > Please respond to
> > java-user@lucene.apache.org
> >
> >
> >
> > To
> > java-user@lucene.apache.org
> > cc
> >
> > Subject
> > Re: optimize with num segments > 1 index keeps growing
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > A write.lock file with timestamp of 13:58 is in all the listings. The
> > first thing I'd try is to add some IndexWriter.close() calls.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Ian.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 4:05 PM, <v.se...@lombardodier.com> wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> here is a concrete example.
> >>
> >> I am starting with an index that has 19017236 docs, which takes 58989
> Mb
> >> on disk:
> >>
> >> 21.07.2011 15:21 20 segments.gen
> >> 21.07.2011 15:21 2'974 segments_2acy4
> >> 21.07.2011 13:58 0 write.lock
> >> 16.07.2011 02:21 33'445'798'886 _52aho.fdt
> >> 16.07.2011 02:21 178'723'932 _52aho.fdx
> >> 16.07.2011 01:58 5'002 _52aho.fnm
> >> 16.07.2011 03:10 9'857'410'889 _52aho.frq
> >> 16.07.2011 03:10 4'538'234'846 _52aho.prx
> >> 16.07.2011 03:10 61'581'767 _52aho.tii
> >> 16.07.2011 03:10 5'505'039'790 _52aho.tis
> >> 21.07.2011 01:01 1'899'536 _52aho_5.del
> >> 21.07.2011 01:05 4'222'206'034 _6t61z.fdt
> >> 21.07.2011 01:05 21'424'556 _6t61z.fdx
> >> 21.07.2011 01:01 5'002 _6t61z.fnm
> >> 21.07.2011 01:12 1'170'370'187 _6t61z.frq
> >> 21.07.2011 01:12 598'373'388 _6t61z.prx
> >> 21.07.2011 01:12 7'574'912 _6t61z.tii
> >> 21.07.2011 01:12 678'766'206 _6t61z.tis
> >> 21.07.2011 13:46 1'458'592'058 _7d6me.cfs
> >> 21.07.2011 13:48 15'702'654 _7dhgz.cfs
> >> 21.07.2011 13:52 16'800'942 _7dphm.cfs
> >> 21.07.2011 13:55 16'714'431 _7dxht.cfs
> >> 21.07.2011 14:24 17'505'435 _7e0wz.cfs
> >> 21.07.2011 14:24 5'875'852 _7e0xu.cfs
> >> 21.07.2011 14:48 18'340'470 _7e1x5.cfs
> >> 21.07.2011 15:19 16'978'564 _7e3ck.cfs
> >> 21.07.2011 15:21 1'208'656 _7e3hv.cfs
> >> 21.07.2011 15:21 19'361 _7e3hw.cfs
> >> 28 File(s) 61'855'156'350 bytes
> >>
> >> I am doing a delete of some of the older documents. after the delete,
> >> I commit then I optimize down to 2 segments. at the end of the
> >> optimize
> > the
> >> index contains 18702510 docs (314727 were deleted) and it takes now
> > 58975
> >> Mb on disk:
> >>
> >> 21.07.2011 15:37 20 segments.gen
> >> 21.07.2011 15:37 524 segments_2acy6
> >> 21.07.2011 13:58 0 write.lock
> >> 16.07.2011 02:21 33'445'798'886 _52aho.fdt
> >> 16.07.2011 02:21 178'723'932 _52aho.fdx
> >> 16.07.2011 01:58 5'002 _52aho.fnm
> >> 16.07.2011 03:10 9'857'410'889 _52aho.frq
> >> 16.07.2011 03:10 4'538'234'846 _52aho.prx
> >> 16.07.2011 03:10 61'581'767 _52aho.tii
> >> 16.07.2011 03:10 5'505'039'790 _52aho.tis
> >> 21.07.2011 15:23 1'999'945 _52aho_6.del
> >> 21.07.2011 15:31 5'194'848'138 _7e3hy.fdt
> >> 21.07.2011 15:31 28'613'668 _7e3hy.fdx
> >> 21.07.2011 15:25 5'002 _7e3hy.fnm
> >> 21.07.2011 15:37 1'529'771'296 _7e3hy.frq
> >> 21.07.2011 15:37 726'582'244 _7e3hy.prx
> >> 21.07.2011 15:37 8'518'198 _7e3hy.tii
> >> 21.07.2011 15:37 763'213'144 _7e3hy.tis
> >> 18 File(s) 61'840'347'291 bytes
> >>
> >> as you can see, size on disk did not really change. at this point I
> >> optimize down to 1 segment and at the end the index takes 48273 Mb on
> >> disk:
> >>
> >> 21.07.2011 16:46 20 segments.gen
> >> 21.07.2011 16:46 278 segments_2acy8
> >> 21.07.2011 13:58 0 write.lock
> >> 21.07.2011 16:06 32'901'423'750 _7e3hz.fdt
> >> 21.07.2011 16:06 149'582'052 _7e3hz.fdx
> >> 21.07.2011 15:42 5'002 _7e3hz.fnm
> >> 21.07.2011 16:46 8'608'541'177 _7e3hz.frq
> >> 21.07.2011 16:46 4'392'616'115 _7e3hz.prx
> >> 21.07.2011 16:46 50'571'856 _7e3hz.tii
> >> 21.07.2011 16:46 4'515'914'658 _7e3hz.tis
> >> 10 File(s) 50'618'654'908 bytes
> >>
> >>
> >> this means that with the 1 segment optimize I was able to reclaim 10
> >> Gb
> > on
> >> disk that the 2 segments optimize could not achieve.
> >>
> >> how can this be explained? is that a normal behavior?
> >>
> >> thanks,
> >>
> >> vince
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Simon Willnauer <simon.willna...@googlemail.com>
> >>
> >>
> >> 20.07.2011 23:11
> >> Please respond to
> >> java-user@lucene.apache.org
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> To
> >> java-user@lucene.apache.org
> >> cc
> >>
> >> Subject
> >> Re: optimize with num segments > 1 index keeps growing
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 2:00 PM, <v.se...@lombardodier.com> wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> I index several millions small documents per day. each day, I remove
> >> some
> >>> of the older documents to keep the index at a stable number of
> >> documents.
> >>> after each purge, I commit then I optimize the index. what I found
> >>> is
> >> that
> >>> if I keep optimizing with max num segments = 2, then the index keeps
> >>> growing on the disk. but as soon as I optimize with just 1 segment,
> the
> >>> space gets reclaimed on the disk. so, I have currently adopted the
> >>> following strategy : every night I optimize with 2 segments, except
> > once
> >>> per week where I optimize with just 1 segment.
> >>
> >> what do you mean by keeps growing. you have n segments and you
> >> optimize down to 2 and the index is bigger than the one with n
> >> segments?
> >>
> >> simon
> >>>
> >>> is that an expected behavior?
> >>> I guess I am doing something special because I was not able to
> > reproduce
> >>> this behavior in a unit test. what could it be?
> >>>
> >>> it would be nice to get some explanatory services within the product
> to
> >>> help get some understanding on its behavior. something that tells
> >>> you
> >> some
> >>> information about your index for instance (number of docs in the
> >> different
> >>> states, how the space is being used, ...). lucene is a wonderful
> >> product,
> >>> but to me this is almost like black magic, and when there is a
> specific
> >>> behavior, I have got little clues to figure out something by myself.
> >> some
> >>> user oriented logging would be nice as well (the index writer info
> >> stream
> >>> is really verbose and very low level).
> >>>
> >>> thanks for your help,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Vince
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-h...@lucene.apache.org
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ************************ DISCLAIMER
> ************************ This
> > message is intended only for use by the person to whom it is
> > addressed. It may contain information that is privileged and
> > confidential. Its content does not constitute a formal commitment by
> > Lombard Odier Darier Hentsch & Cie or any of its branches or
> > affiliates.
> > If you are not the intended recipient of this message, kindly notify
> > the sender immediately and destroy this message. Thank You.
> >
> **********************************************************
> *******
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-h...@lucene.apache.org
>
>
>
>
> ************************ DISCLAIMER ************************
> This message is intended only for use by the person to whom it is
addressed.
> It may contain information that is privileged and confidential. Its
content
> does not constitute a formal commitment by Lombard Odier Darier Hentsch
> & Cie or any of its branches or affiliates.
> If you are not the intended recipient of this message, kindly notify the
> sender immediately and destroy this message. Thank You.
> **********************************************************
> *******
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-h...@lucene.apache.org
************************ DISCLAIMER ************************
This message is intended only for use by the person to
whom it is addressed. It may contain information that is
privileged and confidential. Its content does not
constitute a formal commitment by Lombard Odier
Darier Hentsch & Cie or any of its branches or affiliates.
If you are not the intended recipient of this message,
kindly notify the sender immediately and destroy this
message. Thank You.
*****************************************************************
