Some feedback (might be usefull for other users) :

I have experimented a bit and it seems that I have been able to build a parrallel index for my use case
(9 different index, with docIds in sync, with only 1 segment).

I had to set the IndexWriterConfig of all my indexWriters with
setRAMBufferSizeMB(...)
setMaxBufferedDocs(...)
to first build everything in in RAM, by adding a document (sometimes empty to build a whole row) in all index (the columns)
then I did a forceMerge(1, true) on each indexWriter and close()


To test if it was ok, I had added a docValues to each document
docAddedOrd = 0L
...
++docAddedOrd
for (index in indexes) {
   document = Document()
   document.add(NumericDocValuesField("docAddedOrd", docAddedOrd))
....
}


And then I checked if the docId was equal to the docValue



I had less success without the calls to setRAMBufferSizeMB() and setMaxBufferedDocs() : I managed to build some small indexes with LogDocMergePolicy, but as soon as the index got too big, the docIds went out of sync (merges dprobably happened and shuffled the docIds)

I tried to commit() -> it made it worse
LogByteSizePolicy, NoMergePolicy  -> didn't fix it


There. Now that I'm able to build a parrallel index, I'll check if I can read it with a Parrallel reader.


Best regards,
Olivier

On 05/02/2014 02:42 PM, Shai Erera wrote:I don't think that you need to be concerned with the internal docIDs much. Just imagine the indexes as a big table with multiple columns, where columns are grouped together. Each group is a different index. If a document does not have a value in one column, then you have an empty cell. if a document doesn't have a value in entire group of columns, then you denote that by adding an empty document. Oh, and make sure to use a LogMergePolicy, so segments are merged in the same order across all indexes. And given that you rebuild the indexes every time, you can create them one-by-one. You don't need to do that in parallel to all indexes, unless it's more convenient for you. Shai On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 9:28 AM, Olivier Binda <olivier.bi...@wanadoo.fr>wrote:
On 05/02/2014 06:05 AM, Shai Erera wrote:

If you're always rebuilding, let alone forceMerge, you shouldn't have too
much trouble implementing it. Just make sure that you add documents in the
same order to all indexes.

If you're always rebuilding, how come you have deletions? Anyway, you must
also delete in all indexes.

Indeed, I don't have deletions and I'm mainly concerned with merges.
But I just want to understand the whole docId remapping process,
out of curiosity and also because obtaining a docId (and not losing it)
seems to be the key of parallel indexes

  On May 2, 2014 1:57 AM, "Olivier Binda" <olivier.bi...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
  On 05/01/2014 10:28 AM, Shai Erera wrote:
  I'm glad it helped you. Good luck with the implementation.
  Thanks. First I started looking at the lucene internal code. To
understand
when/where and why docIds are changing/need to be changed (in merge and
doc
deletions) .
I have always wanted to understand this and I think the understanding may
help me somehow.

  One thing I didn't mention (though it's in the jdocs) -- it's not enough
to
have the documents of each index aligned, you also have to have the
segments aligned. That is, if both indexes have documents 0-5 aligned,
but
one index contains a single segment and the other one 2 segments, that's
not going to work.

  That's good to know.
   It is possible to do w/ some care -- when you build the German index,

disable merges (use NoMergePolicy) and flush whenever you indexed enough
documents to match an existing segment on e.g. the Common index.

Or, if rebuilding all indexes won't take long, you can always rebuild
all
of them.

  Yes. That's what I am usually doing (it takes less than 1 minute)
Yet, I usually do a forceMarge too to only have 1 segment :/

   Shai

On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 12:00 AM, Olivier Binda <
olivier.bi...@wanadoo.fr>
wrote:

   On 04/30/2014 10:48 AM, Shai Erera wrote:

   I hope I got all the details right, if I didn't then please clarify.

Also,
I haven't read the entire thread, so if someone already suggested this
...
well, it probably means it's the right solution :)

It sounds like you could use Lucene's ParallelCompositeReader, which
already handles multiple IndexReaders that are aligned by their
internal
document IDs. The way it would work, as far as I understand your
scenario
is something like the following table (columns denote different
indexes).
Each index contains a subset of relevant fields, where common contains
the
common fields, and each language index contains the respective
language
fields.

DocID        LuceneID  Common  English       German        ....
"FirstDoc"   0         A,B,C   EN_words,     DE_words,
                                   EN_sentences  DE_sentences
"SecondDoc"  1         A,B,C
"ThirdDoc"   2         A,B,C

Each index can contain all relevant fields, or only a subset (e.g.
maybe
not all documents have a value for the 'B' field in the 'common'
index).
What's absolutely very important here though is that the indexes are
created very carefully, and if e.g. SecondDoc is not translated into
German, *you must still have an empty document* in the German index,
or
otherwise, document IDs will not align.

   That's exactly how I saw it and what I need to do. So, I'll have a
very

good look at

ParallelCompositeReader


   Lucene does not offer a way to build those indexes though (patches

welcome!!).

   This answers my question 1. Thanks.  :)

I somehow hoped that there was already support for that kind of
situation
in lucene but well,
now at least I know that I won't find an already made solution to my
problem in the lucene classes and that I will have to code one myself,
by taking inspiration in the lucene classes that do similar processing.

   We've started some effort very long time ago on LUCENE-1879

(there's a patch and a discussion for an alternative approach) as well
as
there is a very useful suggestion in ParallelCompositeReader's jdocs
(use
LogDocMergePolicy).

   Wow, priceless. This gives me some headstart and inspiration. :)

   One challenge is how to support multi-threaded indexing, but perhaps

this
isn't a problem in your application? It sounds like, by you writing
that a
user will "download the german index", that the indexes are built
offline?

   Indeed. The index is built offline, in a single thread, and once it
is

built, it is read only.
Cant find an easier situation. :)


    Another challenge is how to control segment merging, so that the
*exact

  same segments* are merged over the parallel indexes. Again, if your
application builds the indexes offline, then this should be easier to
accomplish.

I assume though that when you index e.g. the German documents, then
the
already indexes 'common' fields do not change for a document. If they
do,
you will need to rebuild the 'common' index too.

Once you achieve a correct parallel index, it is very easy to open a
ParallelCompositeReader on any subset of the indexes, e.g.
Common+English,
Common+German, or Common+English+German and search it, since the
internal
document IDs are perfectly aligned.

Shai

   Many thanks for the awesome answer and the help (I love you).

As I really really really need this to happen, I'm going to start
working
on this really soon.

I'm definately not an expert on threads/filesystems/and lucene inner
workings, so I can't promise to contribute a miracoulous patch though.
Especially since I won't work on the muli-thread aspect of the problem.
But I'll do the best I can and contribute back whatever code I can
produce.

Many thanks, again. :)


  On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 7:07 AM, Jose Carlos Canova <
jose.carlos.can...@gmail.com> wrote:

    My suggestion is you not worry about the docId, in practice it is
an

  "internal lucene" id, quite similar with a rowId on a database, each
index
may generate a different docId (it is their problem) from a
translated
document, you may use your own ID that relates one document to
another
on
different index mainly because like you mention are translated
documents
that on theory can be ranked differently from language to language
(it
is
not an obligation that a set of documents on different languages
spams
the
same rank order but i am not 100% sure about this),

Second reason is that 'they may change the internal structure of
lucene
without warrant', and then you lose the forward compatibility.

I am not an expert on Lucene like Schindler, but reading their
documentation understood that they have a special attention on
"internal lucene" and "experimental lucene" which means internal is
"non
warrant compatible", and experimental "may be removed".

For example they (apache-lucene) discover a "new manner" to relate
each
document that is more efficient and change some mechanism, then your
application uses an internal mechanism that is high coupled with
lucene
version xxx (marked as "internal-lucene") you can stuck on a specific
version and   on future have to rewrite some code because and this
might
cause some "management conflict" if your project follows a continuous
integration and you are subordinated on a management structure (bad
to
you).

I saw this on several projects that uses Lucene around they do not
upgrade
their lucene components on their new releases one example if i am not
wrong
still uses Lucene 3 and other that i saw around (e.g. Luke) which
means
that "The project was abandoned because the manner how they integrate
with
Lucene was not fully functional".

Another interesting thing is that developing around Lucene is more
effective, you guarantee that your product will work and they
guarantee
that Lucene works too. This is related with design by contract.

Regards.







On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 7:11 PM, Olivier Binda <
olivier.bi...@wanadoo.fr

   wrote:

Hello.

Sorry to bring this up again. I don't want to be rudeand I mean no
disrespect, but after thinking it through today,
I need to and would really love to have the answer to the following
question :

1) At lucene indexing time, is it possible to rewrite a read-only
index

   so

   that some fields are only found in some segments (and how ?)

Uwe Schindler suggested using different index and a MultiReader for
my
needs and It probably answers my second question, better formulated
as

   "Is

   it possible to restrict  an index to some of it's segments ? " as a

CompositeReader with AtomicReaders (or a custom Directory) that read
the
aforementioned segments might do the trick

Yet, if I am not mistaken (please tell me if I am wrong), it doesn't

   solve

   my needs as I have around 300000 documents of the following kind :

READ ONLY Document :
// common fields shipped with the App that aren't language related
A:
B:
C:
// fields shipped with the English package (a zip)
EN:
EN_Words:
EN_Sentences:
some DocValues
// fields shipped with the German package (a zip)
DE:
DE_Words:
DE_Sentences:
some DocValues
...
There might be hundreds of language package that my users might use


If I use different indexes
indexA for the common stuff,
indexEN for the English package,
indexDE for the german package,

For sure, I will be able to make a big index out of those by using a
MultiReader
BUT it really makes an union out of the three index (right ?) which
means
I'll have 900000 documents
and the documents in the indexA won't have any relations to the
documents
in indexEN (right ?) except if I give each document an id in each
index

   and

   make a join at query time which is a big no no, because I use a

   queryParser

   and users may enter queries like "A:gah AND (DE:schlaffen OR

EN:sleep)"

Or I am mistaken and there is a way to create a document in three
different index that stay in relations with the same docId ?


My solution if question 1 is possible :

In contrast, if I am able to build my index so that my READ ONLY
Document
are stored in

SEGMENT 1
// common fields shipped with the App that aren't language related
A:
B:
C:

SEGMENT 2
// fields shipped with the English package (a zip)
EN:
EN_Words:
EN_Sentences:
some DocValues

SEGMENT 3
// fields shipped with the German package (a zip)
DE:
DE_Words:
DE_Sentences:
some DocValues


I only need to ship SEGMENT 1 in the App and let users download
SEGMENT
2
or SEGMENT 3 whether they want english or german
and use a composite reader with atomic readers (right ?) to use my
frankenstein index at query time with a queryparser


Also, In case question 1 is possible. I would really like to know
too,
if
it is possible to remap at build time docIds in a read-only index.
An application of this would be :

At day 1, I shipp my app with 2 languages packages : English and
german
(documents are uniquely identified by a docId... or by an external
id
(thanks to a docId<-> external id map)

At day 2, I ship an additional language package (French) because I'm
able
to build an index with English, German, French with the same exact
docIds
for each document that the index shipped at day 1



------------------------------------------------------------
---------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-h...@lucene.apache.org



   ------------------------------------------------------------

---------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-h...@lucene.apache.org



  ---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-h...@lucene.apache.org



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-h...@lucene.apache.org




---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-h...@lucene.apache.org

Reply via email to