[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-9662?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17411208#comment-17411208
]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-9662:
--------------------------------------------
{quote}What do you think? Would you recommend we still try to backport these
changes to 8x?
{quote}
I think we should backport these changes, in general. They are not breaking –
the switch to {{CheckIndexException}} still subclasses {{RuntimeException}}.
There will be some Lucene users who are nervous about upgrading to 9.0 too
soon, but would be maybe eager to upgrade to last 8.x release (if that's 8.10
or 8.11 or beyond). I think it's bad if we slow down our rate of backporting
because a major release is coming ... let's try to review your backport commit
carefully to see if it looks OK?
> CheckIndex should be concurrent
> -------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-9662
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-9662
> Project: Lucene - Core
> Issue Type: Bug
> Reporter: Michael McCandless
> Priority: Major
> Time Spent: 18h 20m
> Remaining Estimate: 0h
>
> I am watching a nightly benchmark run slowly run its {{CheckIndex}} step,
> using a single core out of the 128 cores the box has.
> It seems like this is an embarrassingly parallel problem, if the index has
> multiple segments, and would finish much more quickly on concurrent hardware
> if we did "thread per segment".
> If wanted to get even further concurrency, each part of the Lucene index that
> is checked is also independent, so it could be "thread per segment per part".
--
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
