Re: [PROPOSAL] index server project
Doug Cutting wrote: It seems that Nutch and Solr would benefit from a shared index serving infrastructure. > ... An RPC mechanism would be used to communicate between nodes (probably Hadoop's). The system would be configured with a single master node that keeps track of where indexes are located, and a number of slave nodes that would maintain, search and replicate indexes. Clients would talk to the master to find out which indexes to search or update, then they'll talk directly to slaves to perform searches and updates. ... Does this make sense? Does it sound like it would be useful to Solr? To Nutch? To others? Who would be interested and able to work on it? Is there any way this could be generalized so that resources other than Lucene indexes could be packaged up and distributed? The reason I ask is that we have customers who are using Lucene and SOLR and would like to pass other bits of their applications around in the same way, including things we've built from indexed data like spelling checkers, background models for statistically interesting phrase detectors, statistical models for topic/tag classifiers that get retrained as users add more tags, language identifiers, etc. From what I understand of Doug's proposal as well as what I've seen in SOLR, there's not much that's actually Lucene-specific about all this client/master/slave synching other than that the data's a Lucene index. I imagine this could be done with a generalization of the kinds of callbacks found in SOLR, or by making what gets passed around configurable in the proposed index server project. I'd be happy to test and help with API-level design/doc; I don't know much about distribution mechanics, though, which is why I'm so interested in this high level abstraction. - Bob Carpenter Alias-i
Re: [PROPOSAL] index server project
Hi, do people think we are already in a stage where we can setup some basic infrastructure like mailing list and wiki and move the discussion to the new mailing list. Maybe setup a incubator project? I would be happy to help with such basic tasks. Stefan Am 31.10.2006 um 22:03 schrieb Yonik Seeley: On 10/30/06, Doug Cutting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Yonik Seeley wrote: > On 10/18/06, Doug Cutting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> We assume that, within an index, a file with a given name is written >> only once. > > Is this necessary, and will we need the lockless patch (that avoids > renaming or rewriting *any* files), or is Lucene's current index > behavior sufficient? It's not strictly required, but it would make index synchronization a lot simpler. Yes, I was assuming the lockless patch would be committed to Lucene before this project gets very far. Something more than that would be required in order to keep old versions, but this could be as simple as a Directory subclass that refuses to remove files for a time. Or a snapshot (hard links) mechanism. Lucene would also need a way to open a specific index version (rather than just the latest), but I guess that could also be hacked into Directory by hiding later "segments" files (assumes lockless is committed). > It's unfortunate the master needs to be involved on every document add. That should not normally be the case. Ahh... I had assumed that "id" in the following method was document id: IndexLocation getUpdateableIndex(String id); I see now it's index id. But what is index id exactly? Looking at the example API you laid down, it must be a single physical index (as opposed to a logical index). In which case, is it entirely up to the client to manage multi-shard indicies? For example, if we had a "photo" index broken up into 3 shards, each shard would have a separate index id and it would be up to the client to know this, and to query across the different "photo0", "photo1", "photo2" indicies. The master would have no clue those indicies were related. Hmmm, that doesn't work very well for deletes though. It seems like there should be the concept of a logical index, that is composed of multiple shards, and each shard has multiple copies. Or were you thinking that a cluster would only contain a single logical index, and hence all different index ids are simply different shards of that single logical index? That would seem to be consistent with ClientToMasterProtocol .getSearchableIndexes() lacking an id argument. I was not imagining a real-time system, where the next query after a document is added would always include that document. Is that a requirement? That's harder. Not real-time, but it would be nice if we kept it close to what Lucene can currently provide. Most people seem fine with a latency of minutes. At this point I'm mostly trying to see if this functionality would meet the needs of Solr, Nutch and others. It depends on the project scope and how extensible things are. It seems like the master would be a WAR, capable of running stand- alone. What about index servers (slaves)? Would this project include just the interfaces to be implemented by Solr/Nutch nodes, some common implementation code behind the interfaces in the form of a library, or also complete standalone WARs? I'd need to be able to extend the ClientToSlave protocol to add additional methods for Solr (for passing in extra parameters and returning various extra data such as facets, highlighting, etc). Must we include a notion of document identity and/or document version in the mechanism? Would that facillitate updates and coherency? It doesn't need to be in the interfaces I don't think, so it depends on the scope of the index server implementations. -Yonik ~~~ 101tec Inc. search tech for web 2.1 Menlo Park, California http://www.101tec.com
Re: [PROPOSAL] index server project
On 10/30/06, Doug Cutting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Yonik Seeley wrote: > On 10/18/06, Doug Cutting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> We assume that, within an index, a file with a given name is written >> only once. > > Is this necessary, and will we need the lockless patch (that avoids > renaming or rewriting *any* files), or is Lucene's current index > behavior sufficient? It's not strictly required, but it would make index synchronization a lot simpler. Yes, I was assuming the lockless patch would be committed to Lucene before this project gets very far. Something more than that would be required in order to keep old versions, but this could be as simple as a Directory subclass that refuses to remove files for a time. Or a snapshot (hard links) mechanism. Lucene would also need a way to open a specific index version (rather than just the latest), but I guess that could also be hacked into Directory by hiding later "segments" files (assumes lockless is committed). > It's unfortunate the master needs to be involved on every document add. That should not normally be the case. Ahh... I had assumed that "id" in the following method was document id: IndexLocation getUpdateableIndex(String id); I see now it's index id. But what is index id exactly? Looking at the example API you laid down, it must be a single physical index (as opposed to a logical index). In which case, is it entirely up to the client to manage multi-shard indicies? For example, if we had a "photo" index broken up into 3 shards, each shard would have a separate index id and it would be up to the client to know this, and to query across the different "photo0", "photo1", "photo2" indicies. The master would have no clue those indicies were related. Hmmm, that doesn't work very well for deletes though. It seems like there should be the concept of a logical index, that is composed of multiple shards, and each shard has multiple copies. Or were you thinking that a cluster would only contain a single logical index, and hence all different index ids are simply different shards of that single logical index? That would seem to be consistent with ClientToMasterProtocol .getSearchableIndexes() lacking an id argument. I was not imagining a real-time system, where the next query after a document is added would always include that document. Is that a requirement? That's harder. Not real-time, but it would be nice if we kept it close to what Lucene can currently provide. Most people seem fine with a latency of minutes. At this point I'm mostly trying to see if this functionality would meet the needs of Solr, Nutch and others. It depends on the project scope and how extensible things are. It seems like the master would be a WAR, capable of running stand-alone. What about index servers (slaves)? Would this project include just the interfaces to be implemented by Solr/Nutch nodes, some common implementation code behind the interfaces in the form of a library, or also complete standalone WARs? I'd need to be able to extend the ClientToSlave protocol to add additional methods for Solr (for passing in extra parameters and returning various extra data such as facets, highlighting, etc). Must we include a notion of document identity and/or document version in the mechanism? Would that facillitate updates and coherency? It doesn't need to be in the interfaces I don't think, so it depends on the scope of the index server implementations. -Yonik
Re: [PROPOSAL] index server project
Yonik Seeley wrote: On 10/18/06, Doug Cutting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: We assume that, within an index, a file with a given name is written only once. Is this necessary, and will we need the lockless patch (that avoids renaming or rewriting *any* files), or is Lucene's current index behavior sufficient? It's not strictly required, but it would make index synchronization a lot simpler. Yes, I was assuming the lockless patch would be committed to Lucene before this project gets very far. Something more than that would be required in order to keep old versions, but this could be as simple as a Directory subclass that refuses to remove files for a time. The search side seems straightforward enough, but I haven't totally figured out how the update side should work. The master should be out of the loop as much as possible. One approach is that clients randomly assign documents to indexes and send the updates directly to the indexing node. Alternately, clients might index locally, then ship the updates to a node packaged as an index. That was the intent of the addIndex method. One potental problem is a document overwrite implemented as a delete then an add. More than one client doing this for the same document could result in 0 or 2 documents, instead of 1. I guess clients will just need to be relatively coordinated in their activities. Good point. Either the two clients must coordinate, to make sure that they're not updating the same document at the same time, or use a strategy where updates are routed to the slave that contained the old version of the document. That would require a broadcast query to figure out which slave that is. It's unfortunate the master needs to be involved on every document add. That should not normally be the case. Clients can cache the set of writable index locations and directly submit new documents without involving the master. If deletes were broadcast, and documents could go to any partition, that would be one way around it (with the downside of a less powerful master that could implement certain distribution policies). Another way to lessen the master-in-the-middle cost is to make sure one can aggregate small requests: IndexLocation[] getUpdateableIndex(String[] id); I'd assumed that the updateable version of an index does not move around very often. Perhaps a lease mechanism is required. For example, a call to getUpdateableIndex might be valid for ten minutes. We might consider a delete() on the master interface too. That way it could 3) hide the delete policy (broadcast or directl-to-server-that-has-doc) 2) potentially do some batching of deletes 1) simply do the delete locally if there is a single index partition and this is a combination master/searcher I'm reticent to put any frequently-made call on the master. I'd prefer to keep the master only involved at an executive level, with all per-document and per-query traffic going directly from client to slave. It seems like the master might want to be involved in commits too, or maybe we just rely on the slave to master heartbeat to kick of immediately after a commit so that index replication can be initiated? I like the latter approach. New versions are only published as frequently as clients poll the master for updated IndexLocations. Clients keep a cache of both readable and updatable index locations that are periodically refreshed. I was not imagining a real-time system, where the next query after a document is added would always include that document. Is that a requirement? That's harder. At this point I'm mostly trying to see if this functionality would meet the needs of Solr, Nutch and others. Must we include a notion of document identity and/or document version in the mechanism? Would that facillitate updates and coherency? In Nutch a typical case is that you have a bunch of URLs with content that may-or-may-not have been previously indexed. The approach I'm currently leaning towards is that we'd broadcast the deletions of all of these to all slaves, then add index them to randomly assigned indexes. In Nutch multiple clients would naturally be coordinated, since each url is represented only once in each update cycle. Doug
Re: [PROPOSAL] index server project
On 10/18/06, Doug Cutting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: We assume that, within an index, a file with a given name is written only once. Is this necessary, and will we need the lockless patch (that avoids renaming or rewriting *any* files), or is Lucene's current index behavior sufficient? I like the explicit index version and keeping the last few version around. The whole idea of a master seems to lessen the amount of manual configuration in large clusters too. The search side seems straightforward enough, but I haven't totally figured out how the update side should work. Deletions could be broadcast to all slaves. That would probably be fast enough. Hmmm, that does allow one to move documents around the cluster and more easily resize things. One potental problem is a document overwrite implemented as a delete then an add. More than one client doing this for the same document could result in 0 or 2 documents, instead of 1. I guess clients will just need to be relatively coordinated in their activities. Alternately, indexes could be partitioned by a hash of each document's unique id, permitting deletions to be routed to the appropriate slave. A hash is nice, but then you can't resize the number of partitions your index is split into. It's unfortunate the master needs to be involved on every document add. If deletes were broadcast, and documents could go to any partition, that would be one way around it (with the downside of a less powerful master that could implement certain distribution policies). Another way to lessen the master-in-the-middle cost is to make sure one can aggregate small requests: IndexLocation[] getUpdateableIndex(String[] id); We might consider a delete() on the master interface too. That way it could 3) hide the delete policy (broadcast or directl-to-server-that-has-doc) 2) potentially do some batching of deletes 1) simply do the delete locally if there is a single index partition and this is a combination master/searcher It seems like the master might want to be involved in commits too, or maybe we just rely on the slave to master heartbeat to kick of immediately after a commit so that index replication can be initiated? Does this make sense? Does it sound like it would be useful to Solr? To Nutch? To others? Who would be interested and able to work on it? Still interested, and able :-) -Yonik
Re: [PROPOSAL] index server project
Hi, The major goal is scale, right? A distributed server provides more oomph than a single-node server can. Another important goal from my point of view would be index management, like index updates during production. Stefan
Re: [Fwd: [PROPOSAL] index server project]
Damn Y! mail shortcut.
The link to the project is in my Lucene group: http://www.simpy.com/group/363
Otis
- Original Message
From: Alexandru Popescu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: general@lucene.apache.org
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 10:19:00 AM
Subject: Re: [Fwd: [PROPOSAL] index server project]
I am not sure this is (somehow) related, but I think I have noticed
some project on a Sun contest (it was the big prize winner). I cannot
retrieve it now, but hopefully somebody else will.
./alex
--
.w( the_mindstorm )p.
On 10/19/06, Stefan Groschupf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Doug,
>
> we discussed the need of such a tool several times internally and
> developed some workarounds for nutch, so I would be definitely
> interested to contribute to such a project.
> Having a separated project that depends on hadoop would be the best
> case for our usecases.
>
> Best,
> Stefan
>
>
>
> Am 18.10.2006 um 23:35 schrieb Doug Cutting:
>
> > FYI, I just pitched a new project you might be interested in on
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dunno if you subscribe to that list, so I'm
> > spamming you. If it sounds interesting, please reply there. My
> > management at Y! is interested in this, so I'm 'in'.
> >
> > Doug
> >
> > Original Message
> > Subject: [PROPOSAL] index server project
> > Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 14:17:30 -0700
> > From: Doug Cutting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Reply-To: general@lucene.apache.org
> > To: general@lucene.apache.org
> >
> > It seems that Nutch and Solr would benefit from a shared index serving
> > infrastructure. Other Lucene-based projects might also benefit from
> > this. So perhaps we should start a new project to build such a thing.
> > This could start either in java/contrib, or as a separate sub-project,
> > depending on interest.
> >
> > Here are some quick ideas about how this might work.
> >
> > An RPC mechanism would be used to communicate between nodes (probably
> > Hadoop's). The system would be configured with a single master node
> > that keeps track of where indexes are located, and a number of slave
> > nodes that would maintain, search and replicate indexes. Clients
> > would
> > talk to the master to find out which indexes to search or update, then
> > they'll talk directly to slaves to perform searches and updates.
> >
> > Following is an outline of how this might look.
> >
> > We assume that, within an index, a file with a given name is written
> > only once. Index versions are sets of files, and a new version of an
> > index is likely to share most files with the prior version. Versions
> > are numbered. An index server should keep old versions of each index
> > for a while, not immediately removing old files.
> >
> > public class IndexVersion {
> > String Id; // unique name of the index
> > int version; // the version of the index
> > }
> >
> > public class IndexLocation {
> > IndexVersion indexVersion;
> > InetSocketAddress location;
> > }
> >
> > public interface ClientToMasterProtocol {
> > IndexLocation[] getSearchableIndexes();
> > IndexLocation getUpdateableIndex(String id);
> > }
> >
> > public interface ClientToSlaveProtocol {
> > // normal update
> > void addDocument(String index, Document doc);
> > int[] removeDocuments(String index, Term term);
> > void commitVersion(String index);
> >
> > // batch update
> > void addIndex(String index, IndexLocation indexToAdd);
> >
> > // search
> > SearchResults search(IndexVersion i, Query query, Sort sort, int n);
> > }
> >
> > public interface SlaveToMasterProtocol {
> > // sends currently searchable indexes
> > // recieves updated indexes that we should replicate/update
> > public IndexLocation[] heartbeat(IndexVersion[] searchableIndexes);
> > }
> >
> > public interface SlaveToSlaveProtocol {
> > String[] getFileSet(IndexVersion indexVersion);
> > byte[] getFileContent(IndexVersion indexVersion, String file);
> > // based on experience in Hadoop, we probably wouldn't really use
> > // RPC to send file content, but rather HTTP.
> > }
> >
> > The master thus maintains the set of indexes that are available for
> > search, keeps track of which slave should handle changes to an
> > index and
> > initiates index synchronization between slaves. The master can be
> > configured to replicate indexes a specified number of times.
> >
> > The client library c
Re: [Fwd: [PROPOSAL] index server project]
That's distributed indexed, built on top of Sun Grid. The project won a $50K
prize.
- Original Message
From: Alexandru Popescu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: general@lucene.apache.org
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 10:19:00 AM
Subject: Re: [Fwd: [PROPOSAL] index server project]
I am not sure this is (somehow) related, but I think I have noticed
some project on a Sun contest (it was the big prize winner). I cannot
retrieve it now, but hopefully somebody else will.
./alex
--
.w( the_mindstorm )p.
On 10/19/06, Stefan Groschupf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Doug,
>
> we discussed the need of such a tool several times internally and
> developed some workarounds for nutch, so I would be definitely
> interested to contribute to such a project.
> Having a separated project that depends on hadoop would be the best
> case for our usecases.
>
> Best,
> Stefan
>
>
>
> Am 18.10.2006 um 23:35 schrieb Doug Cutting:
>
> > FYI, I just pitched a new project you might be interested in on
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dunno if you subscribe to that list, so I'm
> > spamming you. If it sounds interesting, please reply there. My
> > management at Y! is interested in this, so I'm 'in'.
> >
> > Doug
> >
> > Original Message
> > Subject: [PROPOSAL] index server project
> > Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 14:17:30 -0700
> > From: Doug Cutting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Reply-To: general@lucene.apache.org
> > To: general@lucene.apache.org
> >
> > It seems that Nutch and Solr would benefit from a shared index serving
> > infrastructure. Other Lucene-based projects might also benefit from
> > this. So perhaps we should start a new project to build such a thing.
> > This could start either in java/contrib, or as a separate sub-project,
> > depending on interest.
> >
> > Here are some quick ideas about how this might work.
> >
> > An RPC mechanism would be used to communicate between nodes (probably
> > Hadoop's). The system would be configured with a single master node
> > that keeps track of where indexes are located, and a number of slave
> > nodes that would maintain, search and replicate indexes. Clients
> > would
> > talk to the master to find out which indexes to search or update, then
> > they'll talk directly to slaves to perform searches and updates.
> >
> > Following is an outline of how this might look.
> >
> > We assume that, within an index, a file with a given name is written
> > only once. Index versions are sets of files, and a new version of an
> > index is likely to share most files with the prior version. Versions
> > are numbered. An index server should keep old versions of each index
> > for a while, not immediately removing old files.
> >
> > public class IndexVersion {
> > String Id; // unique name of the index
> > int version; // the version of the index
> > }
> >
> > public class IndexLocation {
> > IndexVersion indexVersion;
> > InetSocketAddress location;
> > }
> >
> > public interface ClientToMasterProtocol {
> > IndexLocation[] getSearchableIndexes();
> > IndexLocation getUpdateableIndex(String id);
> > }
> >
> > public interface ClientToSlaveProtocol {
> > // normal update
> > void addDocument(String index, Document doc);
> > int[] removeDocuments(String index, Term term);
> > void commitVersion(String index);
> >
> > // batch update
> > void addIndex(String index, IndexLocation indexToAdd);
> >
> > // search
> > SearchResults search(IndexVersion i, Query query, Sort sort, int n);
> > }
> >
> > public interface SlaveToMasterProtocol {
> > // sends currently searchable indexes
> > // recieves updated indexes that we should replicate/update
> > public IndexLocation[] heartbeat(IndexVersion[] searchableIndexes);
> > }
> >
> > public interface SlaveToSlaveProtocol {
> > String[] getFileSet(IndexVersion indexVersion);
> > byte[] getFileContent(IndexVersion indexVersion, String file);
> > // based on experience in Hadoop, we probably wouldn't really use
> > // RPC to send file content, but rather HTTP.
> > }
> >
> > The master thus maintains the set of indexes that are available for
> > search, keeps track of which slave should handle changes to an
> > index and
> > initiates index synchronization between slaves. The master can be
> > configured to replicate indexes a specified number of times.
> >
> > The client library can cac
Re: [PROPOSAL] index server project
On 10/19/06, Steven Parkes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: You mention partitioning of indexes, though mostly around delete. What about scalability of corpus size? Definitely in scope. Solr already has scalability of search volume via searchers behind of a load balancer all getting their index from a master. The problem comes when an index is too big to get decent latency for a single query, and that's when you need to partiton the index into "shards" to use google terminology. Would partitioning be effective for that, too? Yes, to a certain extent. At some point you run into network bandwidth issues if you go deep into rankings. What about scalability of ingest rate? As it relates to indexing, I think nutch already has that base covered. What are you thinking, in terms of size? Is this a 10 node thing? I'm personally interested in perhaps 10 to 20 index shards, with multiple replicas of each shard for HA and query load scalability. A 1000 node thing? More? Bigger is cool, but raises a lot of issues. Should be possible, but I won't personally be looking for that. I think scaling effectively will be partially in the hands of the client and how it chooses to merge results from shards. How dynamic? Can nodes come and go? Unplanned: yes. HA is personally key for me. Planned (adding capacity gracefully): it would be nice. I actually hadn't planned it for Solr. Are you going to assume homogeneity of nodes? Hardware homogeneity? That might be out of scope... I'd start off without worrying about it in any case. What about add/modify/delete to search visibility latency? Close to batch/once-a-day or real-time? Anywhere in between I'd think. "Realtime" latencies of minutes or longer are normally fine. -Yonik http://incubator.apache.org/solr Solr, the open-source Lucene search server
RE: [PROPOSAL] index server project
I like the idea. I'm trying to figure out, in broad strokes, the overarching goals. Forgive me if this is obvious, I just want to be clear. The major goal is scale, right? A distributed server provides more oomph than a single-node server can. There are a number of dimensions in scale. You mention replication of indexes, so scalability of search volume is in scope, right? You mention partitioning of indexes, though mostly around delete. What about scalability of corpus size? Would partitioning be effective for that, too? What about scalability of ingest rate? What are you thinking, in terms of size? Is this a 10 node thing? A 1000 node thing? More? Bigger is cool, but raises a lot of issues. How dynamic? Can nodes come and go? Are you going to assume homogeneity of nodes? What about add/modify/delete to search visibility latency? Close to batch/once-a-day or real-time? I think it's definitely something people want. Actually, I think we could answer these questions in different ways and for every answer, we'd find people that would want it. But they would probably be different people.
Re: [Fwd: [PROPOSAL] index server project]
I am not sure this is (somehow) related, but I think I have noticed
some project on a Sun contest (it was the big prize winner). I cannot
retrieve it now, but hopefully somebody else will.
./alex
--
.w( the_mindstorm )p.
On 10/19/06, Stefan Groschupf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Doug,
we discussed the need of such a tool several times internally and
developed some workarounds for nutch, so I would be definitely
interested to contribute to such a project.
Having a separated project that depends on hadoop would be the best
case for our usecases.
Best,
Stefan
Am 18.10.2006 um 23:35 schrieb Doug Cutting:
> FYI, I just pitched a new project you might be interested in on
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dunno if you subscribe to that list, so I'm
> spamming you. If it sounds interesting, please reply there. My
> management at Y! is interested in this, so I'm 'in'.
>
> Doug
>
> ---- Original Message ----
> Subject: [PROPOSAL] index server project
> Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 14:17:30 -0700
> From: Doug Cutting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: general@lucene.apache.org
> To: general@lucene.apache.org
>
> It seems that Nutch and Solr would benefit from a shared index serving
> infrastructure. Other Lucene-based projects might also benefit from
> this. So perhaps we should start a new project to build such a thing.
> This could start either in java/contrib, or as a separate sub-project,
> depending on interest.
>
> Here are some quick ideas about how this might work.
>
> An RPC mechanism would be used to communicate between nodes (probably
> Hadoop's). The system would be configured with a single master node
> that keeps track of where indexes are located, and a number of slave
> nodes that would maintain, search and replicate indexes. Clients
> would
> talk to the master to find out which indexes to search or update, then
> they'll talk directly to slaves to perform searches and updates.
>
> Following is an outline of how this might look.
>
> We assume that, within an index, a file with a given name is written
> only once. Index versions are sets of files, and a new version of an
> index is likely to share most files with the prior version. Versions
> are numbered. An index server should keep old versions of each index
> for a while, not immediately removing old files.
>
> public class IndexVersion {
> String Id; // unique name of the index
> int version; // the version of the index
> }
>
> public class IndexLocation {
> IndexVersion indexVersion;
> InetSocketAddress location;
> }
>
> public interface ClientToMasterProtocol {
> IndexLocation[] getSearchableIndexes();
> IndexLocation getUpdateableIndex(String id);
> }
>
> public interface ClientToSlaveProtocol {
> // normal update
> void addDocument(String index, Document doc);
> int[] removeDocuments(String index, Term term);
> void commitVersion(String index);
>
> // batch update
> void addIndex(String index, IndexLocation indexToAdd);
>
> // search
> SearchResults search(IndexVersion i, Query query, Sort sort, int n);
> }
>
> public interface SlaveToMasterProtocol {
> // sends currently searchable indexes
> // recieves updated indexes that we should replicate/update
> public IndexLocation[] heartbeat(IndexVersion[] searchableIndexes);
> }
>
> public interface SlaveToSlaveProtocol {
> String[] getFileSet(IndexVersion indexVersion);
> byte[] getFileContent(IndexVersion indexVersion, String file);
> // based on experience in Hadoop, we probably wouldn't really use
> // RPC to send file content, but rather HTTP.
> }
>
> The master thus maintains the set of indexes that are available for
> search, keeps track of which slave should handle changes to an
> index and
> initiates index synchronization between slaves. The master can be
> configured to replicate indexes a specified number of times.
>
> The client library can cache the current set of searchable indexes and
> periodically refresh it. Searches are broadcast to one index with
> each
> id and return merged results. The client will load-balance both
> searches and updates.
>
> Deletions could be broadcast to all slaves. That would probably be
> fast
> enough. Alternately, indexes could be partitioned by a hash of each
> document's unique id, permitting deletions to be routed to the
> appropriate slave.
>
> Does this make sense? Does it sound like it would be useful to Solr?
> To Nutch? To others? Who would be interested and able to work on it?
>
> Doug
>
~~~
101tec Inc.
search tech for web 2.1
Menlo Park, California
http://www.101tec.com
Re: [Fwd: [PROPOSAL] index server project]
Hi Doug,
we discussed the need of such a tool several times internally and
developed some workarounds for nutch, so I would be definitely
interested to contribute to such a project.
Having a separated project that depends on hadoop would be the best
case for our usecases.
Best,
Stefan
Am 18.10.2006 um 23:35 schrieb Doug Cutting:
FYI, I just pitched a new project you might be interested in on
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Dunno if you subscribe to that list, so I'm
spamming you. If it sounds interesting, please reply there. My
management at Y! is interested in this, so I'm 'in'.
Doug
Original Message ----
Subject: [PROPOSAL] index server project
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 14:17:30 -0700
From: Doug Cutting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: general@lucene.apache.org
To: general@lucene.apache.org
It seems that Nutch and Solr would benefit from a shared index serving
infrastructure. Other Lucene-based projects might also benefit from
this. So perhaps we should start a new project to build such a thing.
This could start either in java/contrib, or as a separate sub-project,
depending on interest.
Here are some quick ideas about how this might work.
An RPC mechanism would be used to communicate between nodes (probably
Hadoop's). The system would be configured with a single master node
that keeps track of where indexes are located, and a number of slave
nodes that would maintain, search and replicate indexes. Clients
would
talk to the master to find out which indexes to search or update, then
they'll talk directly to slaves to perform searches and updates.
Following is an outline of how this might look.
We assume that, within an index, a file with a given name is written
only once. Index versions are sets of files, and a new version of an
index is likely to share most files with the prior version. Versions
are numbered. An index server should keep old versions of each index
for a while, not immediately removing old files.
public class IndexVersion {
String Id; // unique name of the index
int version; // the version of the index
}
public class IndexLocation {
IndexVersion indexVersion;
InetSocketAddress location;
}
public interface ClientToMasterProtocol {
IndexLocation[] getSearchableIndexes();
IndexLocation getUpdateableIndex(String id);
}
public interface ClientToSlaveProtocol {
// normal update
void addDocument(String index, Document doc);
int[] removeDocuments(String index, Term term);
void commitVersion(String index);
// batch update
void addIndex(String index, IndexLocation indexToAdd);
// search
SearchResults search(IndexVersion i, Query query, Sort sort, int n);
}
public interface SlaveToMasterProtocol {
// sends currently searchable indexes
// recieves updated indexes that we should replicate/update
public IndexLocation[] heartbeat(IndexVersion[] searchableIndexes);
}
public interface SlaveToSlaveProtocol {
String[] getFileSet(IndexVersion indexVersion);
byte[] getFileContent(IndexVersion indexVersion, String file);
// based on experience in Hadoop, we probably wouldn't really use
// RPC to send file content, but rather HTTP.
}
The master thus maintains the set of indexes that are available for
search, keeps track of which slave should handle changes to an
index and
initiates index synchronization between slaves. The master can be
configured to replicate indexes a specified number of times.
The client library can cache the current set of searchable indexes and
periodically refresh it. Searches are broadcast to one index with
each
id and return merged results. The client will load-balance both
searches and updates.
Deletions could be broadcast to all slaves. That would probably be
fast
enough. Alternately, indexes could be partitioned by a hash of each
document's unique id, permitting deletions to be routed to the
appropriate slave.
Does this make sense? Does it sound like it would be useful to Solr?
To Nutch? To others? Who would be interested and able to work on it?
Doug
~~~
101tec Inc.
search tech for web 2.1
Menlo Park, California
http://www.101tec.com
Re: [PROPOSAL] index server project
On 10/18/06, Doug Cutting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Does this make sense? Does it sound like it would be useful to Solr? To Nutch? To others? Who would be interested and able to work on it? Rather than holding my tounge until I wrap my head around all the issues, I'll say that I'm definitely interested! -Yonik
[PROPOSAL] index server project
It seems that Nutch and Solr would benefit from a shared index serving
infrastructure. Other Lucene-based projects might also benefit from
this. So perhaps we should start a new project to build such a thing.
This could start either in java/contrib, or as a separate sub-project,
depending on interest.
Here are some quick ideas about how this might work.
An RPC mechanism would be used to communicate between nodes (probably
Hadoop's). The system would be configured with a single master node
that keeps track of where indexes are located, and a number of slave
nodes that would maintain, search and replicate indexes. Clients would
talk to the master to find out which indexes to search or update, then
they'll talk directly to slaves to perform searches and updates.
Following is an outline of how this might look.
We assume that, within an index, a file with a given name is written
only once. Index versions are sets of files, and a new version of an
index is likely to share most files with the prior version. Versions
are numbered. An index server should keep old versions of each index
for a while, not immediately removing old files.
public class IndexVersion {
String Id; // unique name of the index
int version; // the version of the index
}
public class IndexLocation {
IndexVersion indexVersion;
InetSocketAddress location;
}
public interface ClientToMasterProtocol {
IndexLocation[] getSearchableIndexes();
IndexLocation getUpdateableIndex(String id);
}
public interface ClientToSlaveProtocol {
// normal update
void addDocument(String index, Document doc);
int[] removeDocuments(String index, Term term);
void commitVersion(String index);
// batch update
void addIndex(String index, IndexLocation indexToAdd);
// search
SearchResults search(IndexVersion i, Query query, Sort sort, int n);
}
public interface SlaveToMasterProtocol {
// sends currently searchable indexes
// recieves updated indexes that we should replicate/update
public IndexLocation[] heartbeat(IndexVersion[] searchableIndexes);
}
public interface SlaveToSlaveProtocol {
String[] getFileSet(IndexVersion indexVersion);
byte[] getFileContent(IndexVersion indexVersion, String file);
// based on experience in Hadoop, we probably wouldn't really use
// RPC to send file content, but rather HTTP.
}
The master thus maintains the set of indexes that are available for
search, keeps track of which slave should handle changes to an index and
initiates index synchronization between slaves. The master can be
configured to replicate indexes a specified number of times.
The client library can cache the current set of searchable indexes and
periodically refresh it. Searches are broadcast to one index with each
id and return merged results. The client will load-balance both
searches and updates.
Deletions could be broadcast to all slaves. That would probably be fast
enough. Alternately, indexes could be partitioned by a hash of each
document's unique id, permitting deletions to be routed to the
appropriate slave.
Does this make sense? Does it sound like it would be useful to Solr?
To Nutch? To others? Who would be interested and able to work on it?
Doug
