otis_gospodnetic at yahoo
Jan 11, 2007, 9:14 PM
Post #12 of 14
(784 views)
Permalink
|
One day I read email in a different order, I miss replies like this.
If optimize(boolean force) looks more attractive than optimizeForce(), that's fine by me. I just want to be able to force the cfs index, even if it's already optimized, to expand. Getting it to have a single segment is just a nice bonus here for me.
Regarding that while loop.... it looks like iteration is not needed to force reoptimization. I've tested it with CFS and non-CFS indices, with optimized and unoptimized indices, with and without deletions, and after forced optimization I always ended up with a single segment:
sis = new SegmentInfos();
sis.read(dir);
System.out.println("SEGS: " + sis.size());
If nobody speaks up until the weekend, I'll add optimize(boolean force). We can leave optimize() and make it call optimize(false);
Otis
----- Original Message ----
From: robert engels <rengels [at] ix>
To: java-dev [at] lucene
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 3:55:29 PM
Subject: Re: IndexWriter forceOptimize() ?
I agree with the boolean addition.
optimize(false) is a request to maybe optimize, optimize(true) always
should optimize to a single segment
optimize(false) might check some parameter as to the maximum number
of segments allowed before an actual optimize if performed.
On Jan 11, 2007, at 2:47 PM, Chris Hostetter wrote:
>
> : What do people here think about adding forceOptimize() to
> IndexWriter?
>
> I like the idea, but i don't have any value add to offer to the
> discussion
> of wether the implimentation you suggest is "safe" ... in particular i
> notice that the current optimize method is an iterative loop,
> presumably
> to make surethat mergeSegments gets called as many times as it
> needs to
> based on segmentInfos.size() .. your version doesn't seem to have
> that, so
> does that mean your new version wouldn't allways result in a single
> segment?
>
> another suggestin i have is with the API ... instead of calling it
> "forceOptimize" perhaps the current noarg optimize method should be
> deprecated, and replaced with a new optimize(boolean force) where
> force==true means an optimize will be done, and force==false means an
> optimize will be done if the IndexWriter feels it should be
> done ... this
> would also address my above concern (assuming it's valid)...
>
> @deprecated use optimize(false)
> public synchronized void optimize() throws IOException { optimize
> (false); }
> public synchronized void optimize(boolean force) throws IOException {
> flushRamSegments();
> while (force ||
> (segmentInfos.size() > 1 ||
> (segmentInfos.size() == 1 &&
> (SegmentReader.hasDeletions(segmentInfos.info(0)) ||
> segmentInfos.info(0).dir != directory ||
> (useCompoundFile &&
> (!SegmentReader.usesCompoundFile(segmentInfos.info(0)) ||
> SegmentReader.hasSeparateNorms(segmentInfos.info
> (0)))))))) {
> int minSegment = segmentInfos.size() - mergeFactor;
> mergeSegments(segmentInfos, minSegment < 0 ? 0 : minSegment,
> segmentInfos.size());
> }
> }
>
>
> -Hoss
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe [at] lucene
> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help [at] lucene
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe [at] lucene
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help [at] lucene
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe [at] lucene
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help [at] lucene
|
