[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-10574?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Adrien Grand reopened LUCENE-10574:
-----------------------------------
Reopening: the change to LogMergePolicy isn't good.
The way that the change ignores unbalanced merges and moves on to the next
possible merge doesn't work well for LogMergePolicy's existing logic. I now
understand what is happening but it's quite complex to explain with words, it's
a function of multiple factors.
For instance here is the distribution of segment sizes that you will get if you
do 100 1-document flushes:
[19, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 19, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 19, 1, 1, 1, 1,
1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 10, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1]
> Remove O(n^2) from TieredMergePolicy or change defaults to one that doesn't
> do this
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-10574
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-10574
> Project: Lucene - Core
> Issue Type: Bug
> Reporter: Robert Muir
> Priority: Major
> Fix For: 9.3
>
> Time Spent: 2h 10m
> Remaining Estimate: 0h
>
> Remove {{floorSegmentBytes}} parameter, or change lucene's default to a merge
> policy that doesn't merge in an O(n^2) way.
> I have the feeling it might have to be the latter, as folks seem really wed
> to this crazy O(n^2) behavior.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.7#820007)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
