TieredMergePolicy by default will only merge a segment if it has > 10% deletions.
Can you try calling .setExpungeDeletesPctAllowed(0.0) and then expunge again? Mike McCandless http://blog.mikemccandless.com On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 1:41 PM, <v.se...@lombardodier.com> wrote: > 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. > ***************************************************************** > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-h...@lucene.apache.org
