Lucene - Core
  1. Lucene - Core
  2. LUCENE-4576

Remove CachingWrapperFilter recacheDeletes boolean

    Details

    • Type: Task Task
    • Status: Closed
    • Priority: Major Major
    • Resolution: Fixed
    • Affects Version/s: None
    • Fix Version/s: 4.1, 6.0
    • Component/s: None
    • Labels:
      None
    • Lucene Fields:
      New

      Description

      I think this option is bad news, its just a trap that causes caches to be uselessly invalidated.

      If you really have a totally static index then just expunge your deletes.

      Let's remove the option and complexity.

        Activity

        Hide
        Uwe Schindler added a comment - - edited

        +1. While working on random access filters, I removed the cache options completely, but Mike readded them later (I have to lookup the issue number).
        In my opinion, Robert is right: If you don't have a static index, the chahing of deletes is horrible, as it invalidates the cache on every delete. If you have a static index, you should expungedeletes it, so all acceptDocs will be null and BitsFilteredDocIdSet.wrap() (used by the Cache to apply deletes) with be a no-op.

        Show
        Uwe Schindler added a comment - - edited +1. While working on random access filters, I removed the cache options completely, but Mike readded them later (I have to lookup the issue number). In my opinion, Robert is right: If you don't have a static index, the chahing of deletes is horrible, as it invalidates the cache on every delete. If you have a static index, you should expungedeletes it, so all acceptDocs will be null and BitsFilteredDocIdSet.wrap() (used by the Cache to apply deletes) with be a no-op.
        Hide
        Michael McCandless added a comment -

        I ran a quick perf test (searching on 'the' on 10M wikipedia index), with periodic reopen, and the perf gain is negligible (< 1%) so +1 to nuke this! I agree it's trappy...

        Show
        Michael McCandless added a comment - I ran a quick perf test (searching on 'the' on 10M wikipedia index), with periodic reopen, and the perf gain is negligible (< 1%) so +1 to nuke this! I agree it's trappy...
        Hide
        Commit Tag Bot added a comment -

        [trunk commit] Robert Muir
        http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1414474

        LUCENE-4576: Remove CachingWrapperFilter recacheDeletes boolean

        Show
        Commit Tag Bot added a comment - [trunk commit] Robert Muir http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1414474 LUCENE-4576 : Remove CachingWrapperFilter recacheDeletes boolean
        Hide
        Commit Tag Bot added a comment -

        [branch_4x commit] Robert Muir
        http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1414478

        LUCENE-4576: Remove CachingWrapperFilter recacheDeletes boolean

        Show
        Commit Tag Bot added a comment - [branch_4x commit] Robert Muir http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1414478 LUCENE-4576 : Remove CachingWrapperFilter recacheDeletes boolean
        Hide
        Commit Tag Bot added a comment -

        [branch_4x commit] Robert Muir
        http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1414478

        LUCENE-4576: Remove CachingWrapperFilter recacheDeletes boolean

        Show
        Commit Tag Bot added a comment - [branch_4x commit] Robert Muir http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1414478 LUCENE-4576 : Remove CachingWrapperFilter recacheDeletes boolean

          People

          • Assignee:
            Unassigned
            Reporter:
            Robert Muir
          • Votes:
            0 Vote for this issue
            Watchers:
            2 Start watching this issue

            Dates

            • Created:
              Updated:
              Resolved:

              Development