[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-9379?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17175583#comment-17175583
]
Bruno Roustant commented on LUCENE-9379:
----------------------------------------
[~Raji] maybe a better approach would be to have one tenant per collection, but
you might have many tenants so the performance for many collection is poor? If
this is the case, then I think the root problem is the perf for many
collections. Without composite id router you could use an OS encryption per
collection.
> Directory based approach for index encryption
> ---------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-9379
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-9379
> Project: Lucene - Core
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Reporter: Bruno Roustant
> Assignee: Bruno Roustant
> Priority: Major
> Time Spent: 2h 20m
> Remaining Estimate: 0h
>
> +Important+: This Lucene Directory wrapper approach is to be considered only
> if an OS level encryption is not possible. OS level encryption better fits
> Lucene usage of OS cache, and thus is more performant.
> But there are some use-case where OS level encryption is not possible. This
> Jira issue was created to address those.
> ____________________________________________
>
> The goal is to provide optional encryption of the index, with a scope limited
> to an encryptable Lucene Directory wrapper.
> Encryption is at rest on disk, not in memory.
> This simple approach should fit any Codec as it would be orthogonal, without
> modifying APIs as much as possible.
> Use a standard encryption method. Limit perf/memory impact as much as
> possible.
> Determine how callers provide encryption keys. They must not be stored on
> disk.
--
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
