[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-9148?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17100784#comment-17100784
]
Ignacio Vera commented on LUCENE-9148:
--------------------------------------
Ups, I did not mean to suggest to join the two efforts, just that at some point
we would benefit in some refactoring to make the logic easier to follow for
everyone.
It makes sense to wait for this change in order to have a better picture about
which interfaces /approach can be taken.
> Move the BKD index to its own file.
> -----------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-9148
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-9148
> Project: Lucene - Core
> Issue Type: Task
> Reporter: Adrien Grand
> Priority: Minor
> Time Spent: 10m
> Remaining Estimate: 0h
>
> Lucene60PointsWriter stores both inner nodes and leaf nodes in the same file,
> interleaved. For instance if you have two fields, you would have
> {{<leaf_nodes_A, inner_nodes_A, leaf_nodes_B, inner_nodes_B>}}. It's not
> ideal since leaves and inner nodes have quite different access patterns.
> Should we split this into two files? In the case when the BKD index is
> off-heap, this would also help force it into RAM with
> {{MMapDirectory#setPreload}}.
> Note that Lucene60PointsFormat already has a file that it calls "index" but
> it's really only about mapping fields to file pointers in the other file and
> not what I'm discussing here. But we could possibly store the BKD indices in
> this existing file if we want to avoid creating a new one.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: issues-h...@lucene.apache.org
