lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Ning Li (JIRA)" <>
Subject [jira] Commented: (LUCENE-565) Supporting deleteDocuments in IndexWriter (Code and Performance Results Provided)
Date Tue, 07 Nov 2006 06:23:18 GMT
    [ ] 
Ning Li commented on LUCENE-565:

   [[ Old comment, sent by email on Thu, 6 Jul 2006 07:53:35 -0700 ]]

Hi Otis,

I will regenerate the patch and add more comments. :-)


             "Otis Gospodnetic                                             
             <>                                          To 
             07/05/2006 11:25                                           cc 
                                       [jira] Commented: (LUCENE-565)      
                                       Supporting deleteDocuments in       
                                       IndexWriter (Code and Performance   
                                       Results Provided)                   


Otis Gospodnetic commented on LUCENE-565:

I took a look at the patch and it looks good to me (anyone else had a
Unfortunately, I couldn't get the patch to apply :(

$ patch -F3 < IndexWriter.patch
(Stripping trailing CRs from patch.)
patching file
Hunk #1 succeeded at 58 with fuzz 1.
Hunk #2 succeeded at 112 (offset 2 lines).
Hunk #4 succeeded at 504 (offset 33 lines).
Hunk #6 succeeded at 605 with fuzz 2 (offset 57 lines).
missing header for unified diff at line 259 of patch
(Stripping trailing CRs from patch.)
can't find file to patch at input line 259
Perhaps you should have used the -p or --strip option?
The text leading up to this was:
File to patch:
patching file
Hunk #1 FAILED at 802.
Hunk #2 succeeded at 745 with fuzz 2 (offset -131 lines).
1 out of 2 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file

Would it be possible for you to regenerate the patch against IndexWriter in

Also, I noticed ^Ms in the patch, but I can take care of those easily

Finally, I noticed in 2-3 places that the simple logging via "infoStream"
variable was removed, for example:
-    if (infoStream != null) infoStream.print("merging segments");

Perhaps this was just an oversight?

Looking forward to the new patch. Thanks!




This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators:
For more information on JIRA, see:

> Supporting deleteDocuments in IndexWriter (Code and Performance Results Provided)
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>                 Key: LUCENE-565
>                 URL:
>             Project: Lucene - Java
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: Index
>            Reporter: Ning Li
>         Attachments:, IndexWriter.July09.patch, IndexWriter.patch, KeepDocCount0Segment.Sept15.patch,
NewIndexModifier.July09.patch, NewIndexModifier.Sept21.patch, NewIndexWriter.Aug23.patch,
NewIndexWriter.July18.patch, newMergePolicy.Sept08.patch, perf-test-res.JPG, perf-test-res2.JPG,
> Today, applications have to open/close an IndexWriter and open/close an
> IndexReader directly or indirectly (via IndexModifier) in order to handle a
> mix of inserts and deletes. This performs well when inserts and deletes
> come in fairly large batches. However, the performance can degrade
> dramatically when inserts and deletes are interleaved in small batches.
> This is because the ramDirectory is flushed to disk whenever an IndexWriter
> is closed, causing a lot of small segments to be created on disk, which
> eventually need to be merged.
> We would like to propose a small API change to eliminate this problem. We
> are aware that this kind change has come up in discusions before. See
> . The difference this time is that we have implemented the change and
> tested its performance, as described below.
> API Changes
> -----------
> We propose adding a "deleteDocuments(Term term)" method to IndexWriter.
> Using this method, inserts and deletes can be interleaved using the same
> IndexWriter.
> Note that, with this change it would be very easy to add another method to
> IndexWriter for updating documents, allowing applications to avoid a
> separate delete and insert to update a document.
> Also note that this change can co-exist with the existing APIs for deleting
> documents using an IndexReader. But if our proposal is accepted, we think
> those APIs should probably be deprecated.
> Coding Changes
> --------------
> Coding changes are localized to IndexWriter. Internally, the new
> deleteDocuments() method works by buffering the terms to be deleted.
> Deletes are deferred until the ramDirectory is flushed to disk, either
> because it becomes full or because the IndexWriter is closed. Using Java
> synchronization, care is taken to ensure that an interleaved sequence of
> inserts and deletes for the same document are properly serialized.
> We have attached a modified version of IndexWriter in Release 1.9.1 with
> these changes. Only a few hundred lines of coding changes are needed. All
> changes are commented by "CHANGE". We have also attached a modified version
> of an example from Chapter 2.2 of Lucene in Action.
> Performance Results
> -------------------
> To test the performance our proposed changes, we ran some experiments using
> the TREC WT 10G dataset. The experiments were run on a dual 2.4 Ghz Intel
> Xeon server running Linux. The disk storage was configured as RAID0 array
> with 5 drives. Before indexes were built, the input documents were parsed
> to remove the HTML from them (i.e., only the text was indexed). This was
> done to minimize the impact of parsing on performance. A simple
> WhitespaceAnalyzer was used during index build.
> We experimented with three workloads:
>   - Insert only. 1.6M documents were inserted and the final
>     index size was 2.3GB.
>   - Insert/delete (big batches). The same documents were
>     inserted, but 25% were deleted. 1000 documents were
>     deleted for every 4000 inserted.
>   - Insert/delete (small batches). In this case, 5 documents
>     were deleted for every 20 inserted.
>                                 current       current          new
> Workload                      IndexWriter  IndexModifier   IndexWriter
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Insert only                     116 min       119 min        116 min
> Insert/delete (big batches)       --          135 min        125 min
> Insert/delete (small batches)     --          338 min        134 min
> As the experiments show, with the proposed changes, the performance
> improved by 60% when inserts and deletes were interleaved in small batches.
> Regards,
> Ning
> Ning Li
> Search Technologies
> IBM Almaden Research Center
> 650 Harry Road
> San Jose, CA 95120

This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators:
For more information on JIRA, see:


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message