lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Shai Erera (JIRA)" <>
Subject [jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1595) Split DocMaker into ContentSource and DocMaker
Date Mon, 15 Jun 2009 03:32:07 GMT


Shai Erera commented on LUCENE-1595:

bq. So its not like I'm sitting here saying this is a huge deal - but I think it should def
be considered a bit.

I didn't mean to imply that. In all my recent contributions, back-compat played a major role.
I just explained here why here I didn't give it a second thought, and was actually happy I
am more free to make these changes. But I definitely see your point, and would love to get
another committer's opinion too.

What about these changes? Are they incompat as well?


I took another step here, adding code to PerfTask.tearDown() which logs messages, and changed
all the current tasks that does it to stop doing it, and instead override a getLogMessage().
That consolidated the logic behind when to log messages, in what format etc. It was not consistent
between tasks, and some newer tasks did better job than others.

With that, I also changed the property name (which was invalid even before - doc.add.log.step
wasn't used just in AddDocTask). About the delete.log.step - I first removed it, relying on
the new log.step, but then spotted some .alg which differentiate between when how often to
log messages for delete and how often for the rest, so I re-instated it. If you think it matters,
I can change revert the name back to doc.delete.log.step.

bq. We will get it in for 2.9

Great ! that will relieve some of my custom benchmarking code, and allow me to test on more
content sources (today I implemented this model just for TREC for lack of time).

> Split DocMaker into ContentSource and DocMaker
> ----------------------------------------------
>                 Key: LUCENE-1595
>                 URL:
>             Project: Lucene - Java
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: contrib/benchmark
>            Reporter: Shai Erera
>            Assignee: Mark Miller
>             Fix For: 2.9
>         Attachments: LUCENE-1595.patch, LUCENE-1595.patch, LUCENE-1595.patch
> This issue proposes some refactoring to the benchmark package. Today, DocMaker has two
roles: collecting documents from a collection and preparing a Document object. These two should
actually be split up to ContentSource and DocMaker, which will use a ContentSource instance.
> ContentSource will implement all the methods of DocMaker, like getNextDocData, raw size
in bytes tracking etc. This can actually fit well w/ 1591, by having a basic ContentSource
that offers input stream services, and wraps a file (for example) with a bzip or gzip streams
> DocMaker will implement the makeDocument methods, reusing DocState etc.
> The idea is that collecting the Enwiki documents, for example, should be the same whether
I create documents using DocState, add payloads or index additional metadata. Same goes for
Trec and Reuters collections, as well as LineDocMaker.
> In fact, if one inspects EnwikiDocMaker and LineDocMaker closely, they are 99% the same
and 99% different. Most of their differences lie in the way they read the data, while most
of the similarity lies in the way they create documents (using DocState).
> That led to a somehwat bizzare extension of LineDocMaker by EnwikiDocMaker (just the
reuse of DocState). Also, other DocMakers do not use that DocState today, something they could
have gotten for free with this refactoring proposed.
> So by having a EnwikiContentSource, ReutersContentSource and others (TREC, Line, Simple),
I can write several DocMakers, such as DocStateMaker, ConfigurableDocMaker (one which accpets
all kinds of config options) and custom DocMakers (payload, facets, sorting), passing to them
a ContentSource instance and reuse the same DocMaking algorithm with many content sources,
as well as the same ContentSource algorithm with many DocMaker implementations.
> This will also give us the opportunity to perf test content sources alone (i.e., compare
bzip, gzip and regular input streams), w/o the overhead of creating a Document object.
> I've already done so in my code environment (I extend the benchmark package for my application's
purposes) and I like the flexibility I have. I think this can be a nice contribution to the
benchmark package, which can result in some code cleanup as well.

This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.

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

View raw message