[jira] [Commented] (LUCENE-9036) ExitableDirectoryReader to interrupt DocValues as well
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-9036?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16965628#comment-16965628 ] Adrien Grand commented on LUCENE-9036: -- +1 ExitableDirectoryReader should try to handle all data-structures consistently. I think it hasn't been suggested before because doc values are often consumed via a collector and we already have a TimeLimitingCollector, but like you mentioned Solr's analytics component or the Lucene facet module consume doc values without a collector so adding support for timeout on doc values could be useful. Checking every N-th doc would make sense to me as you would otherwise never be able to interrupt execution of queries if the index has been force-merged down to 1 segment. > ExitableDirectoryReader to interrupt DocValues as well > -- > > Key: LUCENE-9036 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-9036 > Project: Lucene - Core > Issue Type: Improvement >Reporter: Mikhail Khludnev >Priority: Major > > This allow to make AnalyticsComponent and json.facet sensitive to time > allowed. > Does it make sense? Is it enough to check on DV creation ie per field/segment > or it's worth to check every Nth doc? -- 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
[jira] [Commented] (LUCENE-8920) Reduce size of FSTs due to use of direct-addressing encoding
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-8920?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16965650#comment-16965650 ] Bruno Roustant commented on LUCENE-8920: Hum, I was confused by the special case of END_LABEL. Yes, maybe we can rely on the bitTable of the current arc. So we need the label range, the bit table and the first label. I'm going to try to remove the labels. > Reduce size of FSTs due to use of direct-addressing encoding > - > > Key: LUCENE-8920 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-8920 > Project: Lucene - Core > Issue Type: Improvement >Reporter: Michael Sokolov >Priority: Minor > Attachments: TestTermsDictRamBytesUsed.java > > Time Spent: 3h 20m > Remaining Estimate: 0h > > Some data can lead to worst-case ~4x RAM usage due to this optimization. > Several ideas were suggested to combat this on the mailing list: > bq. I think we can improve thesituation here by tracking, per-FST instance, > the size increase we're seeing while building (or perhaps do a preliminary > pass before building) in order to decide whether to apply the encoding. > bq. we could also make the encoding a bit more efficient. For instance I > noticed that arc metadata is pretty large in some cases (in the 10-20 bytes) > which make gaps very costly. Associating each label with a dense id and > having an intermediate lookup, ie. lookup label -> id and then id->arc offset > instead of doing label->arc directly could save a lot of space in some cases? > Also it seems that we are repeating the label in the arc metadata when > array-with-gaps is used, even though it shouldn't be necessary since the > label is implicit from the address? -- 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
[jira] [Commented] (SOLR-13888) SolrCloud 2
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-13888?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16965715#comment-16965715 ] Mark Miller commented on SOLR-13888: If we have a new release, you guys can document and name and do whatever you'd like, I really could care less. This issue is about addressing SolrCloud and it's integration onto Solr before it. I'm calling it SolrCloud 2 - I think it's the right name, it's the name of my work, if my work is used, that's it. When that work is Solr, I don't care what you want to call it. My starburst branch wasn't going to rename Solr either. Anyway, I started gaining real insight into Solr and SolrCloud when I dived into my starburst branch effort about 2 years ago now or maybe a little more or less. I got the system into a shape that I could actually peak in. Kind of like washing a spot off the window covered in soot. I spent a lot of time working towards addressing the seemingly unlimited number of issues I found. Frustrated with the community and SolrCloud, I was doing this on my branch without regard for regular Solr. I changed jobs and abandoned that stuff. Even lost most of it unknown to me. Anyway, since, I keep tugging at the same threads. A couple times walked the same paths. There is only one conclusion for me - I cant be associated with this anymore, not unless we make a huge effort to address this. > SolrCloud 2 > --- > > Key: SOLR-13888 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-13888 > Project: Solr > Issue Type: Task > Security Level: Public(Default Security Level. Issues are Public) >Reporter: Mark Miller >Assignee: Mark Miller >Priority: Major > > As devs discuss dropping the SolrCloud name on the dev list, here is an issue > titled SolrCloud 2. > A couple times now I've pulled on the sweater thread that is our broken > tests. It leads to one place - SolrCloud is sick and devs are adding spotty > code on top of it at a rate that will lead to the system falling in on > itself. As it is, it's a very slow, very inefficient, very unreliable, very > buggy system. > This is not why I am here. This is the opposite of why I am here. > So please, let's stop. We can't build on that thing as it is. > > I need some time, I lost a lot of work at one point, the scope has expanded > since I realized how problematic some things really are, but I have an > alternative path that is not so duct tape and straw. As the building climbs, > that foundation is going to kill us all. > > This i not about an architecture change - the architecture is fine. The > implementation is broken and getting worse. -- 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
[jira] [Commented] (LUCENE-8213) Cache costly subqueries asynchronously
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-8213?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16965724#comment-16965724
]
Ben Manes commented on LUCENE-8213:
---
Sorry to distract. I am trying to understand {{LRUQueryCache}} as it has a lot
of excellent engineering invested into it. For asynchronous caching without
duplicate loads, wouldn't a `CompletableFuture` as the cached value be
suitable? The cache doesn't handle the cache stampedes, so the same entry may
be computed twice with the first to insert as the winner, and the other threads
dropping their work. Ideally by using memoization the other threads would defer
to the first and avoid the costly operation. Similarly the cache lookup is
skipped if the global lock is held and the value computed, but not stored,
which means a busy lock reduces performance across all usages.
Would there be a benefit/liability in using a dedicated caching library like
Caffeine? That does handle concurrency in a smoother fashion, which could be
beneficial here. I am also curious if the hit ratios of LRU could be improved
upon as search problems tend to have a strong frequency bias.
> Cache costly subqueries asynchronously
> --
>
> Key: LUCENE-8213
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-8213
> Project: Lucene - Core
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: core/query/scoring
>Affects Versions: 7.2.1
>Reporter: Amir Hadadi
>Priority: Minor
> Labels: performance
> Attachments:
> 0001-Reproduce-across-segment-caching-of-same-query.patch,
> thetaphi_Lucene-Solr-master-Linux_24839.log.txt
>
> Time Spent: 20h 20m
> Remaining Estimate: 0h
>
> IndexOrDocValuesQuery allows to combine costly range queries with a selective
> lead iterator in an optimized way. However, the range query at some point
> gets cached by a querying thread in LRUQueryCache, which negates the
> optimization of IndexOrDocValuesQuery for that specific query.
> It would be nice to see an asynchronous caching implementation in such cases,
> so that queries involving IndexOrDocValuesQuery would have consistent
> performance characteristics.
--
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
[jira] [Commented] (SOLR-13888) SolrCloud 2
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-13888?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16966240#comment-16966240
]
Mark Miller commented on SOLR-13888:
{quote}bq.Mark: I believe you are being given notice that when your code
appears, it's going to be vetoed.
{quote}
No, it still cannot be vetoed. I've thought this through. I don't need master,
I am king of my own branch. If my branch is, oh at least, 100x-1000x better
than master, sit there and veto all day is my feeling. Enjoy. Won't be my
concern.
> SolrCloud 2
> ---
>
> Key: SOLR-13888
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-13888
> Project: Solr
> Issue Type: Task
> Security Level: Public(Default Security Level. Issues are Public)
>Reporter: Mark Miller
>Assignee: Mark Miller
>Priority: Major
>
> As devs discuss dropping the SolrCloud name on the dev list, here is an issue
> titled SolrCloud 2.
> A couple times now I've pulled on the sweater thread that is our broken
> tests. It leads to one place - SolrCloud is sick and devs are adding spotty
> code on top of it at a rate that will lead to the system falling in on
> itself. As it is, it's a very slow, very inefficient, very unreliable, very
> buggy system.
> This is not why I am here. This is the opposite of why I am here.
> So please, let's stop. We can't build on that thing as it is.
>
> I need some time, I lost a lot of work at one point, the scope has expanded
> since I realized how problematic some things really are, but I have an
> alternative path that is not so duct tape and straw. As the building climbs,
> that foundation is going to kill us all.
>
> This i not about an architecture change - the architecture is fine. The
> implementation is broken and getting worse.
--
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
[jira] [Comment Edited] (SOLR-13888) SolrCloud 2
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-13888?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16966242#comment-16966242 ] Mark Miller edited comment on SOLR-13888 at 11/3/19 8:14 PM: - The starburst work, this work, whatever work, it's not for me. I'll supply it. People don't like it, I really don't care, I'm not here to please people from that perspective. was (Author: markrmil...@gmail.com): The starburst work, this work, whatever work, it's not for me. I'll supply it. People don't it, I really don't care, I'm not here to please people from that perspective. > SolrCloud 2 > --- > > Key: SOLR-13888 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-13888 > Project: Solr > Issue Type: Task > Security Level: Public(Default Security Level. Issues are Public) >Reporter: Mark Miller >Assignee: Mark Miller >Priority: Major > > As devs discuss dropping the SolrCloud name on the dev list, here is an issue > titled SolrCloud 2. > A couple times now I've pulled on the sweater thread that is our broken > tests. It leads to one place - SolrCloud is sick and devs are adding spotty > code on top of it at a rate that will lead to the system falling in on > itself. As it is, it's a very slow, very inefficient, very unreliable, very > buggy system. > This is not why I am here. This is the opposite of why I am here. > So please, let's stop. We can't build on that thing as it is. > > I need some time, I lost a lot of work at one point, the scope has expanded > since I realized how problematic some things really are, but I have an > alternative path that is not so duct tape and straw. As the building climbs, > that foundation is going to kill us all. > > This i not about an architecture change - the architecture is fine. The > implementation is broken and getting worse. -- 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
[jira] [Comment Edited] (SOLR-13888) SolrCloud 2
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-13888?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16966242#comment-16966242 ] Mark Miller edited comment on SOLR-13888 at 11/3/19 8:14 PM: - The starburst work, this work, whatever work, it's not for me. I'll supply it. People don't it, I really don't care, I'm not here to please people from that perspective. was (Author: markrmil...@gmail.com): The starburst work, this work, whatever work, it's not for me. I'll supply. People don't it, I really don't care, I'm not here to please people from that perspective. > SolrCloud 2 > --- > > Key: SOLR-13888 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-13888 > Project: Solr > Issue Type: Task > Security Level: Public(Default Security Level. Issues are Public) >Reporter: Mark Miller >Assignee: Mark Miller >Priority: Major > > As devs discuss dropping the SolrCloud name on the dev list, here is an issue > titled SolrCloud 2. > A couple times now I've pulled on the sweater thread that is our broken > tests. It leads to one place - SolrCloud is sick and devs are adding spotty > code on top of it at a rate that will lead to the system falling in on > itself. As it is, it's a very slow, very inefficient, very unreliable, very > buggy system. > This is not why I am here. This is the opposite of why I am here. > So please, let's stop. We can't build on that thing as it is. > > I need some time, I lost a lot of work at one point, the scope has expanded > since I realized how problematic some things really are, but I have an > alternative path that is not so duct tape and straw. As the building climbs, > that foundation is going to kill us all. > > This i not about an architecture change - the architecture is fine. The > implementation is broken and getting worse. -- 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
[jira] [Commented] (SOLR-13888) SolrCloud 2
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-13888?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16966242#comment-16966242 ] Mark Miller commented on SOLR-13888: The starburst work, this work, whatever work, it's not for me. I'll supply. People don't it, I really don't care, I'm not here to please people from that perspective. > SolrCloud 2 > --- > > Key: SOLR-13888 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-13888 > Project: Solr > Issue Type: Task > Security Level: Public(Default Security Level. Issues are Public) >Reporter: Mark Miller >Assignee: Mark Miller >Priority: Major > > As devs discuss dropping the SolrCloud name on the dev list, here is an issue > titled SolrCloud 2. > A couple times now I've pulled on the sweater thread that is our broken > tests. It leads to one place - SolrCloud is sick and devs are adding spotty > code on top of it at a rate that will lead to the system falling in on > itself. As it is, it's a very slow, very inefficient, very unreliable, very > buggy system. > This is not why I am here. This is the opposite of why I am here. > So please, let's stop. We can't build on that thing as it is. > > I need some time, I lost a lot of work at one point, the scope has expanded > since I realized how problematic some things really are, but I have an > alternative path that is not so duct tape and straw. As the building climbs, > that foundation is going to kill us all. > > This i not about an architecture change - the architecture is fine. The > implementation is broken and getting worse. -- 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
[jira] [Commented] (SOLR-13888) SolrCloud 2
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-13888?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16966244#comment-16966244 ] Mark Miller commented on SOLR-13888: To me this is: "Hey Mark, the Driver might shoot himself in the head" Yeah, and he probably won't, but life is full of little risks. > SolrCloud 2 > --- > > Key: SOLR-13888 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-13888 > Project: Solr > Issue Type: Task > Security Level: Public(Default Security Level. Issues are Public) >Reporter: Mark Miller >Assignee: Mark Miller >Priority: Major > > As devs discuss dropping the SolrCloud name on the dev list, here is an issue > titled SolrCloud 2. > A couple times now I've pulled on the sweater thread that is our broken > tests. It leads to one place - SolrCloud is sick and devs are adding spotty > code on top of it at a rate that will lead to the system falling in on > itself. As it is, it's a very slow, very inefficient, very unreliable, very > buggy system. > This is not why I am here. This is the opposite of why I am here. > So please, let's stop. We can't build on that thing as it is. > > I need some time, I lost a lot of work at one point, the scope has expanded > since I realized how problematic some things really are, but I have an > alternative path that is not so duct tape and straw. As the building climbs, > that foundation is going to kill us all. > > This i not about an architecture change - the architecture is fine. The > implementation is broken and getting worse. -- 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
[GitHub] [lucene-site] adamwalz opened a new pull request #2: Add solr pages to Pelican template
adamwalz opened a new pull request #2: Add solr pages to Pelican template URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene-site/pull/2 This PR adds the ability to build the solr pages at lucene.apache.org/solr with Pelican. This change gets to rough parity with the current production site. Upcoming changes are required to inspect each page individually to ensure 100% parity as well as to DRY the templates to reduce needless code duplication introduced as part of the migration. See README.md for instructions on building locally This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org With regards, Apache Git Services - To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: issues-h...@lucene.apache.org
[jira] [Commented] (LUCENE-9012) Setup minimal site with working Pelican build
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-9012?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16966247#comment-16966247 ] Adam Walz commented on LUCENE-9012: --- [~janhoy] I've createdA [https://github.com/apache/lucene-site/pull/2] to migrate the solr pages to Pelican. As discussed, future PRs will be needed to go through each page with a more fine-toothed comb and ensure 100% parity with the current production site, as well as to reduce some code duplication introduced in the migration. > Setup minimal site with working Pelican build > - > > Key: LUCENE-9012 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-9012 > Project: Lucene - Core > Issue Type: Sub-task >Reporter: Jan Høydahl >Assignee: Jan Høydahl >Priority: Major > Time Spent: 20m > Remaining Estimate: 0h > -- 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
[GitHub] [lucene-site] adamwalz commented on issue #2: Add solr pages to Pelican template
adamwalz commented on issue #2: Add solr pages to Pelican template URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene-site/pull/2#issuecomment-549175072 Future PRs are expected to be smaller and easier to review, possibly with the exception of a refactoring PR to reduce code duplication. This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org With regards, Apache Git Services - To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: issues-h...@lucene.apache.org
[jira] [Commented] (SOLR-13888) SolrCloud 2
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-13888?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16966267#comment-16966267 ] Andrzej Bialecki commented on SOLR-13888: - I couldn’t care less about the name. What I’m most interested in is the code - let the code speak for itself, even if it’s called “Solr UnFuBar-ed”:) My concern though is that this cleanup or redesign, or whatever Mark wants to call it, is a monumental task bringing monumental changes, and IMHO the sooner it becomes public (in the sense that the community can at least follow Mark’s work) the better, even if it’s still incomplete. Progress, not perfection. So I would urge you Mark to continue this much needed work, but doing it piece-wise and in public, and not through a single massive code dump - it will increase the likelihood of this work being better understood and accepted. > SolrCloud 2 > --- > > Key: SOLR-13888 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-13888 > Project: Solr > Issue Type: Task > Security Level: Public(Default Security Level. Issues are Public) >Reporter: Mark Miller >Assignee: Mark Miller >Priority: Major > > As devs discuss dropping the SolrCloud name on the dev list, here is an issue > titled SolrCloud 2. > A couple times now I've pulled on the sweater thread that is our broken > tests. It leads to one place - SolrCloud is sick and devs are adding spotty > code on top of it at a rate that will lead to the system falling in on > itself. As it is, it's a very slow, very inefficient, very unreliable, very > buggy system. > This is not why I am here. This is the opposite of why I am here. > So please, let's stop. We can't build on that thing as it is. > > I need some time, I lost a lot of work at one point, the scope has expanded > since I realized how problematic some things really are, but I have an > alternative path that is not so duct tape and straw. As the building climbs, > that foundation is going to kill us all. > > This i not about an architecture change - the architecture is fine. The > implementation is broken and getting worse. -- 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
[GitHub] [lucene-site] janhoy commented on issue #2: Add solr pages to Pelican template
janhoy commented on issue #2: Add solr pages to Pelican template URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene-site/pull/2#issuecomment-549180241 The solr section looks good. Of course there are lots of duplication in the templates but you already know that. Do you want me to squash your merges since 9a8bfaf into one? This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org With regards, Apache Git Services - To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: issues-h...@lucene.apache.org
[GitHub] [lucene-site] adamwalz commented on issue #2: Add solr pages to Pelican template
adamwalz commented on issue #2: Add solr pages to Pelican template URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene-site/pull/2#issuecomment-549180665 Squashing is up to you depending on the norms of the project. I've been trying to keep the commits logical so that each commit is buildable on its own and `git blame` can sort of describe the reasoning behind particular changes. If it were up to me I'd ask to rebase instead of squash. This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org With regards, Apache Git Services - To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: issues-h...@lucene.apache.org
[GitHub] [lucene-site] janhoy merged pull request #2: Add solr pages to Pelican template
janhoy merged pull request #2: Add solr pages to Pelican template URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene-site/pull/2 This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org With regards, Apache Git Services - To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: issues-h...@lucene.apache.org
[GitHub] [lucene-site] janhoy commented on issue #2: Add solr pages to Pelican template
janhoy commented on issue #2: Add solr pages to Pelican template URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene-site/pull/2#issuecomment-549181574 Good, they are all logically laid out, and I merged now, to quickly be able to iterate on the finishing touches. Appreciate the nice work you do here! This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org With regards, Apache Git Services - To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: issues-h...@lucene.apache.org
[jira] [Commented] (LUCENE-9012) Setup minimal site with working Pelican build
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-9012?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16966270#comment-16966270 ] Jan Høydahl commented on LUCENE-9012: - Great work. Merged! > Setup minimal site with working Pelican build > - > > Key: LUCENE-9012 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-9012 > Project: Lucene - Core > Issue Type: Sub-task >Reporter: Jan Høydahl >Assignee: Jan Høydahl >Priority: Major > Time Spent: 20m > Remaining Estimate: 0h > -- 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
[jira] [Commented] (SOLR-13888) SolrCloud 2
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-13888?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16966274#comment-16966274 ] Mark Miller commented on SOLR-13888: I can understand wanting to see what I've got asap, but people will see what they see when I think it makes sense. I've spent a lot of time, I've got my timetable, this whole thing is pretty much take it or leave it. I'm not wrapped up in what the community decides to do going forward. I'm wrapped up in figuring out if I need to start over on something else. I always have a main project - from the moment I could move - what it is, not the biggest concern. I'm going to present a proposal, I'm going to present it when I can, you guys have all the freedom in the world to do whatever you please, there will be no hard feelings on my end. > SolrCloud 2 > --- > > Key: SOLR-13888 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-13888 > Project: Solr > Issue Type: Task > Security Level: Public(Default Security Level. Issues are Public) >Reporter: Mark Miller >Assignee: Mark Miller >Priority: Major > > As devs discuss dropping the SolrCloud name on the dev list, here is an issue > titled SolrCloud 2. > A couple times now I've pulled on the sweater thread that is our broken > tests. It leads to one place - SolrCloud is sick and devs are adding spotty > code on top of it at a rate that will lead to the system falling in on > itself. As it is, it's a very slow, very inefficient, very unreliable, very > buggy system. > This is not why I am here. This is the opposite of why I am here. > So please, let's stop. We can't build on that thing as it is. > > I need some time, I lost a lot of work at one point, the scope has expanded > since I realized how problematic some things really are, but I have an > alternative path that is not so duct tape and straw. As the building climbs, > that foundation is going to kill us all. > > This i not about an architecture change - the architecture is fine. The > implementation is broken and getting worse. -- 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
[jira] [Commented] (SOLR-13888) SolrCloud 2
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-13888?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16966276#comment-16966276 ] Mark Miller commented on SOLR-13888: I do have an interest in the new Zk interaction classes AB made - I think we need non closeable long lived objects for standard per request use. That is getting way ahead of myself though. I lose 10 days of 16-20 hour work. Like peak productivity, spent weeks building up mentel models work. Peak flow work. I have constraints in every direction. It is what is. At the end of the day, it's not about what I change - I don't give a damn - unchange some of it - open source, woohoo. It's about having something where any of you can building something that works and is stable. Because you are not now and you cant now. > SolrCloud 2 > --- > > Key: SOLR-13888 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-13888 > Project: Solr > Issue Type: Task > Security Level: Public(Default Security Level. Issues are Public) >Reporter: Mark Miller >Assignee: Mark Miller >Priority: Major > > As devs discuss dropping the SolrCloud name on the dev list, here is an issue > titled SolrCloud 2. > A couple times now I've pulled on the sweater thread that is our broken > tests. It leads to one place - SolrCloud is sick and devs are adding spotty > code on top of it at a rate that will lead to the system falling in on > itself. As it is, it's a very slow, very inefficient, very unreliable, very > buggy system. > This is not why I am here. This is the opposite of why I am here. > So please, let's stop. We can't build on that thing as it is. > > I need some time, I lost a lot of work at one point, the scope has expanded > since I realized how problematic some things really are, but I have an > alternative path that is not so duct tape and straw. As the building climbs, > that foundation is going to kill us all. > > This i not about an architecture change - the architecture is fine. The > implementation is broken and getting worse. -- 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
[jira] [Commented] (SOLR-13888) SolrCloud 2
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-13888?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16966278#comment-16966278 ] Mark Miller commented on SOLR-13888: And let's just also understand, 5 lines of absolutely amazing save the world code can cost a day or more ... > SolrCloud 2 > --- > > Key: SOLR-13888 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-13888 > Project: Solr > Issue Type: Task > Security Level: Public(Default Security Level. Issues are Public) >Reporter: Mark Miller >Assignee: Mark Miller >Priority: Major > > As devs discuss dropping the SolrCloud name on the dev list, here is an issue > titled SolrCloud 2. > A couple times now I've pulled on the sweater thread that is our broken > tests. It leads to one place - SolrCloud is sick and devs are adding spotty > code on top of it at a rate that will lead to the system falling in on > itself. As it is, it's a very slow, very inefficient, very unreliable, very > buggy system. > This is not why I am here. This is the opposite of why I am here. > So please, let's stop. We can't build on that thing as it is. > > I need some time, I lost a lot of work at one point, the scope has expanded > since I realized how problematic some things really are, but I have an > alternative path that is not so duct tape and straw. As the building climbs, > that foundation is going to kill us all. > > This i not about an architecture change - the architecture is fine. The > implementation is broken and getting worse. -- 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
[jira] [Commented] (SOLR-13888) SolrCloud 2
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-13888?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16966288#comment-16966288 ] Mark Miller commented on SOLR-13888: The simulation framework I'm still questioning - I'm thinking things can / should be basically as fast without it. But I'm open to being wrong. I've spent the least time duplicating perf improvements, so would be a while before I'm fully confident in that again. But I mean, I'm thinking spinning up 100 collections and index 10 docs and doing like 50 collection admin ops should be somewhere near sub 10 seconds and then nightly can do a lot in even a minute. > SolrCloud 2 > --- > > Key: SOLR-13888 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-13888 > Project: Solr > Issue Type: Task > Security Level: Public(Default Security Level. Issues are Public) >Reporter: Mark Miller >Assignee: Mark Miller >Priority: Major > > As devs discuss dropping the SolrCloud name on the dev list, here is an issue > titled SolrCloud 2. > A couple times now I've pulled on the sweater thread that is our broken > tests. It leads to one place - SolrCloud is sick and devs are adding spotty > code on top of it at a rate that will lead to the system falling in on > itself. As it is, it's a very slow, very inefficient, very unreliable, very > buggy system. > This is not why I am here. This is the opposite of why I am here. > So please, let's stop. We can't build on that thing as it is. > > I need some time, I lost a lot of work at one point, the scope has expanded > since I realized how problematic some things really are, but I have an > alternative path that is not so duct tape and straw. As the building climbs, > that foundation is going to kill us all. > > This i not about an architecture change - the architecture is fine. The > implementation is broken and getting worse. -- 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
[jira] [Commented] (SOLR-13888) SolrCloud 2
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-13888?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16966293#comment-16966293 ] Mark Miller commented on SOLR-13888: Lots and lots and lots of our bugs are hiding in our slowness (sometimes, they do a random test fail showing as well). Speed is the light. > SolrCloud 2 > --- > > Key: SOLR-13888 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-13888 > Project: Solr > Issue Type: Task > Security Level: Public(Default Security Level. Issues are Public) >Reporter: Mark Miller >Assignee: Mark Miller >Priority: Major > > As devs discuss dropping the SolrCloud name on the dev list, here is an issue > titled SolrCloud 2. > A couple times now I've pulled on the sweater thread that is our broken > tests. It leads to one place - SolrCloud is sick and devs are adding spotty > code on top of it at a rate that will lead to the system falling in on > itself. As it is, it's a very slow, very inefficient, very unreliable, very > buggy system. > This is not why I am here. This is the opposite of why I am here. > So please, let's stop. We can't build on that thing as it is. > > I need some time, I lost a lot of work at one point, the scope has expanded > since I realized how problematic some things really are, but I have an > alternative path that is not so duct tape and straw. As the building climbs, > that foundation is going to kill us all. > > This i not about an architecture change - the architecture is fine. The > implementation is broken and getting worse. -- 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
[jira] [Commented] (SOLR-13888) SolrCloud 2
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-13888?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16966311#comment-16966311 ] Mark Miller commented on SOLR-13888: I'll shut up until I have something substantial to say, but let me just wrap with: You guys are essentially building on my building blocks as it is. Not entirely, of course not, but essentially. I don't want to mess with your building. But I need to burn those blocks. And I can't just burn unfortunately. > SolrCloud 2 > --- > > Key: SOLR-13888 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-13888 > Project: Solr > Issue Type: Task > Security Level: Public(Default Security Level. Issues are Public) >Reporter: Mark Miller >Assignee: Mark Miller >Priority: Major > > As devs discuss dropping the SolrCloud name on the dev list, here is an issue > titled SolrCloud 2. > A couple times now I've pulled on the sweater thread that is our broken > tests. It leads to one place - SolrCloud is sick and devs are adding spotty > code on top of it at a rate that will lead to the system falling in on > itself. As it is, it's a very slow, very inefficient, very unreliable, very > buggy system. > This is not why I am here. This is the opposite of why I am here. > So please, let's stop. We can't build on that thing as it is. > > I need some time, I lost a lot of work at one point, the scope has expanded > since I realized how problematic some things really are, but I have an > alternative path that is not so duct tape and straw. As the building climbs, > that foundation is going to kill us all. > > This i not about an architecture change - the architecture is fine. The > implementation is broken and getting worse. -- 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
[jira] [Commented] (SOLR-13888) SolrCloud 2
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-13888?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16966313#comment-16966313 ] Mark Miller commented on SOLR-13888: I spent a lt of time making some of those blocks really really shiny, not once but ... and still, all that careful care and effort and make sure every test passes and is fast, still, they must burn. > SolrCloud 2 > --- > > Key: SOLR-13888 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-13888 > Project: Solr > Issue Type: Task > Security Level: Public(Default Security Level. Issues are Public) >Reporter: Mark Miller >Assignee: Mark Miller >Priority: Major > > As devs discuss dropping the SolrCloud name on the dev list, here is an issue > titled SolrCloud 2. > A couple times now I've pulled on the sweater thread that is our broken > tests. It leads to one place - SolrCloud is sick and devs are adding spotty > code on top of it at a rate that will lead to the system falling in on > itself. As it is, it's a very slow, very inefficient, very unreliable, very > buggy system. > This is not why I am here. This is the opposite of why I am here. > So please, let's stop. We can't build on that thing as it is. > > I need some time, I lost a lot of work at one point, the scope has expanded > since I realized how problematic some things really are, but I have an > alternative path that is not so duct tape and straw. As the building climbs, > that foundation is going to kill us all. > > This i not about an architecture change - the architecture is fine. The > implementation is broken and getting worse. -- 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
[jira] [Commented] (SOLR-13888) SolrCloud 2
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-13888?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16966318#comment-16966318 ] Mark Miller commented on SOLR-13888: And for gosh sakes, if anyone puts up a fuss about not getting enough input or say and then is not there when there is work to do so help me god ... > SolrCloud 2 > --- > > Key: SOLR-13888 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-13888 > Project: Solr > Issue Type: Task > Security Level: Public(Default Security Level. Issues are Public) >Reporter: Mark Miller >Assignee: Mark Miller >Priority: Major > > As devs discuss dropping the SolrCloud name on the dev list, here is an issue > titled SolrCloud 2. > A couple times now I've pulled on the sweater thread that is our broken > tests. It leads to one place - SolrCloud is sick and devs are adding spotty > code on top of it at a rate that will lead to the system falling in on > itself. As it is, it's a very slow, very inefficient, very unreliable, very > buggy system. > This is not why I am here. This is the opposite of why I am here. > So please, let's stop. We can't build on that thing as it is. > > I need some time, I lost a lot of work at one point, the scope has expanded > since I realized how problematic some things really are, but I have an > alternative path that is not so duct tape and straw. As the building climbs, > that foundation is going to kill us all. > > This i not about an architecture change - the architecture is fine. The > implementation is broken and getting worse. -- 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
[jira] [Updated] (SOLR-13888) SolrCloud 2
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-13888?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Mark Miller updated SOLR-13888: --- Attachment: solrscreen.png > SolrCloud 2 > --- > > Key: SOLR-13888 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-13888 > Project: Solr > Issue Type: Task > Security Level: Public(Default Security Level. Issues are Public) >Reporter: Mark Miller >Assignee: Mark Miller >Priority: Major > Attachments: solrscreen.png > > > As devs discuss dropping the SolrCloud name on the dev list, here is an issue > titled SolrCloud 2. > A couple times now I've pulled on the sweater thread that is our broken > tests. It leads to one place - SolrCloud is sick and devs are adding spotty > code on top of it at a rate that will lead to the system falling in on > itself. As it is, it's a very slow, very inefficient, very unreliable, very > buggy system. > This is not why I am here. This is the opposite of why I am here. > So please, let's stop. We can't build on that thing as it is. > > I need some time, I lost a lot of work at one point, the scope has expanded > since I realized how problematic some things really are, but I have an > alternative path that is not so duct tape and straw. As the building climbs, > that foundation is going to kill us all. > > This i not about an architecture change - the architecture is fine. The > implementation is broken and getting worse. -- 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
[jira] [Commented] (SOLR-13888) SolrCloud 2
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-13888?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16966359#comment-16966359 ] Mark Miller commented on SOLR-13888: solrscreen.png: Yikes! 120 shard collection build stopped much activity at 15 seconds. We can build over 200 in less than that, I messed something up. > SolrCloud 2 > --- > > Key: SOLR-13888 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-13888 > Project: Solr > Issue Type: Task > Security Level: Public(Default Security Level. Issues are Public) >Reporter: Mark Miller >Assignee: Mark Miller >Priority: Major > Attachments: solrscreen.png > > > As devs discuss dropping the SolrCloud name on the dev list, here is an issue > titled SolrCloud 2. > A couple times now I've pulled on the sweater thread that is our broken > tests. It leads to one place - SolrCloud is sick and devs are adding spotty > code on top of it at a rate that will lead to the system falling in on > itself. As it is, it's a very slow, very inefficient, very unreliable, very > buggy system. > This is not why I am here. This is the opposite of why I am here. > So please, let's stop. We can't build on that thing as it is. > > I need some time, I lost a lot of work at one point, the scope has expanded > since I realized how problematic some things really are, but I have an > alternative path that is not so duct tape and straw. As the building climbs, > that foundation is going to kill us all. > > This i not about an architecture change - the architecture is fine. The > implementation is broken and getting worse. -- 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
[jira] [Commented] (LUCENE-9031) UnsupportedOperationException on highlighting Interval Query
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-9031?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16966382#comment-16966382
]
Lucene/Solr QA commented on LUCENE-9031:
| (x) *{color:red}-1 overall{color}* |
\\
\\
|| Vote || Subsystem || Runtime || Comment ||
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} patch {color} | {color:red} 0m 8s{color}
| {color:red} LUCENE-9031 does not apply to master. Rebase required? Wrong
Branch? See
https://wiki.apache.org/lucene-java/HowToContribute#Contributing_your_work for
help. {color} |
\\
\\
|| Subsystem || Report/Notes ||
| JIRA Issue | LUCENE-9031 |
| JIRA Patch URL |
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12984699/LUCENE-9031.patch |
| Console output |
https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-LUCENE-Build/221/console |
| Powered by | Apache Yetus 0.7.0 http://yetus.apache.org |
This message was automatically generated.
> UnsupportedOperationException on highlighting Interval Query
>
>
> Key: LUCENE-9031
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-9031
> Project: Lucene - Core
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: modules/queries
>Reporter: Mikhail Khludnev
>Assignee: Mikhail Khludnev
>Priority: Major
> Fix For: 8.4
>
> Attachments: LUCENE-9031.patch, LUCENE-9031.patch, LUCENE-9031.patch,
> LUCENE-9031.patch, LUCENE-9031.patch
>
> Time Spent: 10m
> Remaining Estimate: 0h
>
> When UnifiedHighlighter highlights Interval Query it encounters
> UnsupportedOperationException.
--
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
[jira] [Updated] (SOLR-13841) Provide mappings for jackson annotation @JsonProperty to use Jackson deserializer
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-13841?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Noble Paul updated SOLR-13841: -- Summary: Provide mappings for jackson annotation @JsonProperty to use Jackson deserializer (was: Add jackson databind annotations to SolrJ classpath) > Provide mappings for jackson annotation @JsonProperty to use Jackson > deserializer > - > > Key: SOLR-13841 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-13841 > Project: Solr > Issue Type: Task > Security Level: Public(Default Security Level. Issues are Public) >Reporter: Noble Paul >Assignee: Noble Paul >Priority: Major > Time Spent: 1h 10m > Remaining Estimate: 0h > > We can start using annotations in SolrJ to minimize the amount of code we > write & improve readability. Jackson is a widely used library and everyone is > already familiar with it -- 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
[GitHub] [lucene-solr] noblepaul merged pull request #992: SOLR-13841: removed jackson dependencies from SolrJ and provided a mapping to our annotation
noblepaul merged pull request #992: SOLR-13841: removed jackson dependencies from SolrJ and provided a mapping to our annotation URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene-solr/pull/992 This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org With regards, Apache Git Services - To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: issues-h...@lucene.apache.org
[jira] [Commented] (SOLR-13841) Provide mappings for jackson annotation @JsonProperty to use Jackson deserializer
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-13841?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16966412#comment-16966412 ] ASF subversion and git services commented on SOLR-13841: Commit b5f5b0f2bc5e049931980b5fd0b13fd79efc80d3 in lucene-solr's branch refs/heads/master from Noble Paul [ https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=lucene-solr.git;h=b5f5b0f ] SOLR-13841: removed jackson dependencies from SolrJ and provided a mapping to our annotation (#992) Provide mappings for jackson annotation @JsonProperty to use Jackson deserializer > Provide mappings for jackson annotation @JsonProperty to use Jackson > deserializer > - > > Key: SOLR-13841 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-13841 > Project: Solr > Issue Type: Task > Security Level: Public(Default Security Level. Issues are Public) >Reporter: Noble Paul >Assignee: Noble Paul >Priority: Major > Time Spent: 1h 20m > Remaining Estimate: 0h > > We can start using annotations in SolrJ to minimize the amount of code we > write & improve readability. Jackson is a widely used library and everyone is > already familiar with it -- 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
