[GitHub] [lucene] mocobeta commented on pull request #811: Add some basic tasks to help/workflow

2022-04-16 Thread GitBox 


mocobeta commented on PR #811:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/811#issuecomment-1100650074

   @dweiss would you mind if I push it to main?


-- 
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.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
us...@infra.apache.org


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: issues-h...@lucene.apache.org

[jira] [Created] (LUCENE-10518) FieldInfos consistency check can refuse to open Lucene 8 index

2022-04-16 Thread Nhat Nguyen (Jira) 
Nhat Nguyen created LUCENE-10518:


 Summary: FieldInfos consistency check can refuse to open Lucene 8 
index
 Key: LUCENE-10518
 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-10518
 Project: Lucene - Core
  Issue Type: Bug
  Components: core/index
Affects Versions: 8.10.1
Reporter: Nhat Nguyen


A field-infos consistency check introduced in Lucene 9 (LUCENE-9334) can refuse 
to open a Lucene 8 index. Lucene 8 can create a partial FieldInfo if hitting a 
non-aborting exception (for example [term is too 
long|https://github.com/apache/lucene-solr/blob/6a6484ba396927727b16e5061384d3cd80d616b2/lucene/core/src/java/org/apache/lucene/index/DefaultIndexingChain.java#L944])
 during processing fields of a document. We don't have this problem in Lucene 9 
as we process fields in two phases with the [first 
phase|https://github.com/apache/lucene/blob/10ebc099c846c7d96f4ff5f9b7853df850fa8442/lucene/core/src/java/org/apache/lucene/index/IndexingChain.java#L589-L614]
 processing only FieldInfos. 


The issue can be reproduced with this snippet.
{code:java}
public void testWriteIndexOn8x() throws Exception {
  FieldType KeywordField = new FieldType();
  KeywordField.setTokenized(false);
  KeywordField.setOmitNorms(true);
  KeywordField.setIndexOptions(IndexOptions.DOCS);
  KeywordField.freeze();

  try (Directory dir = newDirectory()) {
IndexWriterConfig config = new IndexWriterConfig();
config.setCommitOnClose(false);
config.setMergePolicy(NoMergePolicy.INSTANCE);
try (IndexWriter writer = new IndexWriter(dir, config)) {

  // first segment
  writer.addDocument(new Document()); // an empty doc
  Document d1 = new Document();
  byte[] chars = new byte[IndexWriter.MAX_STORED_STRING_LENGTH + 1];
  Arrays.fill(chars, (byte) 'a');
  d1.add(new Field("field", new BytesRef(chars), KeywordField));
  d1.add(new BinaryDocValuesField("field", new BytesRef(chars)));
  expectThrows(IllegalArgumentException.class, () -> 
writer.addDocument(d1));
  writer.flush();

  // second segment
  Document d2 = new Document();
  d2.add(new Field("field", new BytesRef("hello world"), KeywordField));
  d2.add(new SortedDocValuesField("field", new BytesRef("hello world")));
  writer.addDocument(d2);
  writer.flush();
  writer.commit();

  // Check for doc values types consistency
  Map docValuesTypes = new HashMap<>();
  try(DirectoryReader reader = DirectoryReader.open(dir)){
for (LeafReaderContext leaf : reader.leaves()) {
  for (FieldInfo fi : leaf.reader().getFieldInfos()) {
DocValuesType current = docValuesTypes.putIfAbsent(fi.name, 
fi.getDocValuesType());
if (current != null && current != fi.getDocValuesType()) {
  fail("cannot change DocValues type from " + current + " to " + 
fi.getDocValuesType() + " for field \"" + fi.name + "\"");
}
  }
}
  }
}
  }
}
{code}


I would like to propose to:

- Backport the two-phase fields processing from Lucene9 to Lucene8. The patch 
should be small and contained.
- Introduce an option in Lucene9 to skip checking field-infos consistency 
(i.e., behave like Lucene 8 when the option is enabled).

/cc [~mayya] and [~jpountz]



--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.1#820001)

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: issues-h...@lucene.apache.org

[GitHub] [lucene] LuXugang commented on a diff in pull request #792: LUCENE-10502: Use IndexedDISI to store docIds and DirectMonotonicWriter/Reader to handle ordToDoc

2022-04-16 Thread GitBox 


LuXugang commented on code in PR #792:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/792#discussion_r851637023


##
lucene/core/src/java/org/apache/lucene/codecs/lucene92/Lucene92HnswVectorsWriter.java:
##
@@ -0,0 +1,328 @@
+/*
+ * Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one or more
+ * contributor license agreements.  See the NOTICE file distributed with
+ * this work for additional information regarding copyright ownership.
+ * The ASF licenses this file to You under the Apache License, Version 2.0
+ * (the "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance with
+ * the License.  You may obtain a copy of the License at
+ *
+ * http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
+ *
+ * Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
+ * distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
+ * WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied.
+ * See the License for the specific language governing permissions and
+ * limitations under the License.
+ */
+
+package org.apache.lucene.codecs.lucene92;
+
+import static 
org.apache.lucene.codecs.lucene92.Lucene92HnswVectorsFormat.DIRECT_MONOTONIC_BLOCK_SHIFT;
+import static org.apache.lucene.search.DocIdSetIterator.NO_MORE_DOCS;
+
+import java.io.IOException;
+import java.util.Arrays;
+import org.apache.lucene.codecs.CodecUtil;
+import org.apache.lucene.codecs.KnnVectorsReader;
+import org.apache.lucene.codecs.KnnVectorsWriter;
+import org.apache.lucene.codecs.lucene90.IndexedDISI;
+import org.apache.lucene.index.DocsWithFieldSet;
+import org.apache.lucene.index.FieldInfo;
+import org.apache.lucene.index.IndexFileNames;
+import org.apache.lucene.index.RandomAccessVectorValuesProducer;
+import org.apache.lucene.index.SegmentWriteState;
+import org.apache.lucene.index.VectorSimilarityFunction;
+import org.apache.lucene.index.VectorValues;
+import org.apache.lucene.search.DocIdSetIterator;
+import org.apache.lucene.store.IndexInput;
+import org.apache.lucene.store.IndexOutput;
+import org.apache.lucene.util.BytesRef;
+import org.apache.lucene.util.IOUtils;
+import org.apache.lucene.util.hnsw.HnswGraph.NodesIterator;
+import org.apache.lucene.util.hnsw.HnswGraphBuilder;
+import org.apache.lucene.util.hnsw.NeighborArray;
+import org.apache.lucene.util.hnsw.OnHeapHnswGraph;
+import org.apache.lucene.util.packed.DirectMonotonicWriter;
+
+/**
+ * Writes vector values and knn graphs to index segments.
+ *
+ * @lucene.experimental
+ */
+public final class Lucene92HnswVectorsWriter extends KnnVectorsWriter {
+
+  private final SegmentWriteState segmentWriteState;
+  private final IndexOutput meta, vectorData, vectorIndex;
+  private final int maxDoc;
+
+  private final int maxConn;
+  private final int beamWidth;
+  private boolean finished;
+
+  Lucene92HnswVectorsWriter(SegmentWriteState state, int maxConn, int 
beamWidth)
+  throws IOException {
+this.maxConn = maxConn;
+this.beamWidth = beamWidth;
+
+assert state.fieldInfos.hasVectorValues();
+segmentWriteState = state;
+
+String metaFileName =
+IndexFileNames.segmentFileName(
+state.segmentInfo.name, state.segmentSuffix, 
Lucene92HnswVectorsFormat.META_EXTENSION);
+
+String vectorDataFileName =
+IndexFileNames.segmentFileName(
+state.segmentInfo.name,
+state.segmentSuffix,
+Lucene92HnswVectorsFormat.VECTOR_DATA_EXTENSION);
+
+String indexDataFileName =
+IndexFileNames.segmentFileName(
+state.segmentInfo.name,
+state.segmentSuffix,
+Lucene92HnswVectorsFormat.VECTOR_INDEX_EXTENSION);
+
+boolean success = false;
+try {
+  meta = state.directory.createOutput(metaFileName, state.context);
+  vectorData = state.directory.createOutput(vectorDataFileName, 
state.context);
+  vectorIndex = state.directory.createOutput(indexDataFileName, 
state.context);
+
+  CodecUtil.writeIndexHeader(
+  meta,
+  Lucene92HnswVectorsFormat.META_CODEC_NAME,
+  Lucene92HnswVectorsFormat.VERSION_CURRENT,
+  state.segmentInfo.getId(),
+  state.segmentSuffix);
+  CodecUtil.writeIndexHeader(
+  vectorData,
+  Lucene92HnswVectorsFormat.VECTOR_DATA_CODEC_NAME,
+  Lucene92HnswVectorsFormat.VERSION_CURRENT,
+  state.segmentInfo.getId(),
+  state.segmentSuffix);
+  CodecUtil.writeIndexHeader(
+  vectorIndex,
+  Lucene92HnswVectorsFormat.VECTOR_INDEX_CODEC_NAME,
+  Lucene92HnswVectorsFormat.VERSION_CURRENT,
+  state.segmentInfo.getId(),
+  state.segmentSuffix);
+  maxDoc = state.segmentInfo.maxDoc();
+  success = true;
+} finally {
+  if (success == false) {
+IOUtils.closeWhileHandlingException(this);
+  }
+}
+  }
+
+  @Override
+  public void writeField(FieldInfo fieldInfo, KnnVectorsReader 
knnVectorsReader)
+  throws IOException {
+long v

[GitHub] [lucene] LuXugang commented on pull request #792: LUCENE-10502: Use IndexedDISI to store docIds and DirectMonotonicWriter/Reader to handle ordToDoc

2022-04-16 Thread GitBox 


LuXugang commented on PR #792:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/792#issuecomment-1100685721

   > @LuXugang Thanks a lot for your work. I was thinking may be a better way 
to present these changes is to leave all formats changes to a later PR. And for 
this PR just to make changes on `Lucene91HnswVectorsWriter` and 
`Lucene91HnswVectorsReader` directly, otherwise it is difficult to see what 
exactly has been changed. And for a later PR we can incorporate all the format 
changes by renaming modified `Lucene92HnswVectorsWriter` to 
`Lucene92HnswVectorsWriter` etc.. WDYT?
   
   No problem  ,  I will do force pushing to only present the core changes.


-- 
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.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
us...@infra.apache.org


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: issues-h...@lucene.apache.org

[GitHub] [lucene] yixunx commented on pull request #756: LUCENE-10470: [Tessellator] Prevent bridges that introduce collinear edges

2022-04-16 Thread GitBox 


yixunx commented on PR #756:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/756#issuecomment-1100790763

   Hi @iverase it turns out that many of my failed shapes failed because they 
contain self-intersections and I set `checkSelfIntersections = true` when 
running the tessellator. They do not run into exceptions if I set the flag to 
false. I did get one shape that failed with "unable to tessellate" though:
   ```
   {
 "type": "Polygon",
 "coordinates": [
   [
 [
   33.45959656411607,
   -55.440650754647535
 ],
 [
   33.45959656411607,
   -55.4409285324253
 ],
 [
   33.45904100856052,
   -55.4409285324253
 ],
 [
   33.45904100856052,
   -55.441206310203086
 ],
 [
   33.458763230782736,
   -55.441206310203086
 ],
 [
   33.458763230782736,
   -55.44231742131419
 ],
 [
   33.4593187863383,
   -55.44231742131419
 ],
 [
   33.4593187863383,
   -55.44259519909197
 ],
 [
   33.45959656411607,
   -55.44259519909197
 ],
 [
   33.45959656411607,
   -55.44231742131419
 ],
 [
   33.45987434189385,
   -55.44231742131419
 ],
 [
   33.45987434189385,
   -55.44259519909197
 ],
 [
   33.46015211967163,
   -55.44259519909197
 ],
 [
   33.46015211967163,
   -55.44287297686975
 ],
 [
   33.460429897449416,
   -55.44287297686975
 ],
 [
   33.460429897449416,
   -55.44315075464752
 ],
 [
   33.46070767522719,
   -55.44315075464752
 ],
 [
   33.46070767522719,
   -55.44287297686975
 ],
 [
   33.460985453004966,
   -55.44287297686975
 ],
 [
   33.460985453004966,
   -55.44231742131419
 ],
 [
   33.46126323078274,
   -55.44231742131419
 ],
 [
   33.46126323078274,
   -55.44176186575864
 ],
 [
   33.460985453004966,
   -55.44176186575864
 ],
 [
   33.460985453004966,
   -55.441206310203086
 ],
 [
   33.46126323078274,
   -55.441206310203086
 ],
 [
   33.46126323078274,
   -55.440650754647535
 ],
 [
   33.461541008560516,
   -55.440650754647535
 ],
 [
   33.461541008560516,
   -55.44037297686975
 ],
 [
   33.4618187863383,
   -55.44037297686975
 ],
 [
   33.4618187863383,
   -55.44009519909197
 ],
 [
   33.463207675227196,
   -55.44009519909197
 ],
 [
   33.463207675227196,
   -55.43926186575864
 ],
 [
   33.46292989744941,
   -55.43926186575864
 ],
 [
   33.46292989744941,
   -55.43898408798086
 ],
 [
   33.46265211967163,
   -55.43898408798086
 ],
 [
   33.46265211967163,
   -55.43926186575864
 ],
 [
   33.46070767522719,
   -55.43926186575864
 ],
 [
   33.46070767522719,
   -55.43898408798086
 ],
 [
   33.46015211967163,
   -55.43898408798086
 ],
 [
   33.46015211967163,
   -55.43953964353642
 ],
 [
   33.45987434189385,
   -55.43953964353642
 ],
 [
   33.45987434189385,
   -55.43981742131419
 ],
 [
   33.45959656411607,
   -55.43981742131419
 ],
 [
   33.45959656411607,
   -55.44037297686975
 ],
 [
   33.4593187863383,
   -55.44037297686975
 ],
 [
   33.4593187863383,
   -55.440650754647535
 ],
 [
   33.45959656411607,
   -55.440650754647535
 ]
   ],
   [
 [
   33.460985453004966,
   -55.4409285324253
 ],
 [
   33.460985453004966,
   -55.441206310203086
 ],
 [
   33.46070767522719,
   -55.441206310203086
 ],
 [
   33.46070767522719,
   -55.4409285324253
 ],
 [
   33.460985453004966,
   -55.4409285324253
 ]
   ],
   [
 [
   33.46070767522719,
   -55.44009519909197
 ],
 [
   33.46070767522719,
   -55.4409285324253

[GitHub] [lucene] gautamworah96 commented on pull request #779: LUCENE-10488: Optimize Facets#getTopDims in IntTaxonomyFacets

2022-04-16 Thread GitBox 


gautamworah96 commented on PR #779:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/779#issuecomment-1100800360

   I have not taken a detailed look at the PR yet. From the benchmark results 
posted, I see that we've got a regression in several taxonomy tasks that 
utilize BInaryDocValues. See (-15, -10, -10, -10). Would you mind re-running 
the benchmark just to be sure @Yuti-G  (also verify that the only difference 
between mainline and candidate are your commits). Thanks for the effort btw!
   
   ```
TaskQPS baseline  StdDevQPS candidate  StdDev   
 Pct diff p-value
  BrowseMonthTaxoFacets   19.31 (43.0%)   16.36 (20.9%) 
 -15.3% ( -55% -   85%) 0.153
  BrowseDayOfYearTaxoFacets   17.31 (29.5%)   15.50 (19.3%) 
 -10.4% ( -45% -   54%) 0.186
   BrowseDateTaxoFacets   17.15 (29.9%)   15.36 (19.7%) 
 -10.4% ( -46% -   55%) 0.194
BrowseRandomLabelTaxoFacets   14.70 (29.6%)   13.19 (18.5%) 
 -10.3% ( -44% -   53%) 0.189
   ```


-- 
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.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
us...@infra.apache.org


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: issues-h...@lucene.apache.org