[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-3070?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15885787#comment-15885787
]
Vikas Saurabh commented on OAK-3070:
------------------------------------
Probably x-connection. I posted this comment \[0] on the epic issue a few
moments back. A snippet below:
{quote}
My only concern with OAK-5704 is that it's a bit too intrusive and I'm not
feeling comfortable with it getting backported until it's gets some back time.
So, what I'm proposing is that we do both OAK-5704 and OAK-3070 in trunk
(although OAK-3070 is kind of useless in presence of OAK-5704) and backport
only OAK-3070.
The rationale being that the biggest losses of OAK-3070 - (1) requiring a
complete revGc run before it gives benefits and (2) reduction in _deletedOnce
index size might not be the biggest problem to solve atm.
{quote}
Also, as I said there, I also think OAK-5704 is a better way to handle the
issue - but I feel this issue is better to solve long false positive that some
repositories are feeling right now.
\[0]:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-3287?focusedCommentId=15885761&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-15885761
> Use a lower bound in VersionGC query to avoid checking unmodified once
> deleted docs
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: OAK-3070
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-3070
> Project: Jackrabbit Oak
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: mongomk, rdbmk
> Reporter: Chetan Mehrotra
> Assignee: Vikas Saurabh
> Labels: performance
> Attachments: OAK-3070.patch, OAK-3070-updated.patch,
> OAK-3070-updated.patch
>
>
> As part of OAK-3062 [~mreutegg] suggested
> {quote}
> As a further optimization we could also limit the lower bound of the _modified
> range. The revision GC does not need to check documents with a _deletedOnce
> again if they were not modified after the last successful GC run. If they
> didn't change and were considered existing during the last run, then they
> must still exist in the current GC run. To make this work, we'd need to
> track the last successful revision GC run.
> {quote}
> Lowest last validated _modified can be possibly saved in settings collection
> and reused for next run
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.15#6346)
