mikemccand commented on issue #14431:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/issues/14431#issuecomment-2828061328
> > I don't know if we are already doing this -- is this TieredMergePolicy's
default behavior (1 -> 1) for forceMergeDeletes? I don't think so?
>
> It's not the default ind
jpountz commented on issue #14431:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/issues/14431#issuecomment-2819513522
> I don't know if we are already doing this -- is this TieredMergePolicy's
default behavior (1 -> 1) for forceMergeDeletes? I don't think so?
It's not the default indeed. Tier
mikemccand commented on issue #14431:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/issues/14431#issuecomment-2819320548
If we do add this timeout, I don't think the still-running merges kicked off
during `forceMergeDeletes` should abort -- they should ideally run to
completion, just in the backgro
vigyasharma commented on issue #14431:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/issues/14431#issuecomment-2811827103
> Suppose forceMergeDeletes() returned the MergeSpec
This could be a _"good first issue"_, I'll create a spin-off issue for the
same. We can close it if others disagree wi
vigyasharma commented on issue #14431:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/issues/14431#issuecomment-2807330038
For some Amazon Product Search context, we do a searcher switch-over to the
newly built index once it is declared healthy and ready to use. The idea here
is to first build the i
houserjohn commented on issue #14431:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/issues/14431#issuecomment-2803254782
After looking into the suggestions you mentioned, I still believe there is a
valid need for a timeout for `forceMergeDeletes`. In the first suggestion, you
recommended using two
msokolov commented on issue #14431:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/issues/14431#issuecomment-2781449497
We're operating in a setup where we have an initial phase that builds an
index while it is offline, not accepting query traffic. Once that is complete,
we enable the index to take
jpountz commented on issue #14431:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/issues/14431#issuecomment-2780641860
> and some deletes being addressed is better than none.
This part of your message suggests that deletes get reclaimed progressively
over time, which is often not true. So wait
jpountz commented on issue #14431:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/issues/14431#issuecomment-2778108878
For my understanding, what is the benefit of waiting until the timeout is
reached rather than not waiting at all?
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To r
houserjohn commented on issue #14431:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/issues/14431#issuecomment-2779350159
Apologies if I am misunderstanding your question, but the example that it is
great for is right after the full indexing of your documents. The indexing
likely created many delete
houserjohn opened a new issue, #14431:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/issues/14431
### Description
Using IndexWriter's `forceMergeDeletes` to eliminate merge debt is a very
useful feature -- especially during initial indexing. However, larger indexes
can require 20+ minutes to
11 matches
Mail list logo
