jpountz merged PR #13267:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13267
--
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.apa
uschindler commented on code in PR #13267:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13267#discussion_r1552492150
##
lucene/CHANGES.txt:
##
@@ -78,6 +78,12 @@ Optimizations
* GITHUB#13149: Made PointRangeQuery faster, for some segment sizes, by
reducing the amount of virtual
uschindler commented on code in PR #13267:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13267#discussion_r1552487587
##
lucene/CHANGES.txt:
##
@@ -78,6 +78,12 @@ Optimizations
* GITHUB#13149: Made PointRangeQuery faster, for some segment sizes, by
reducing the amount of virtual
uschindler commented on code in PR #13267:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13267#discussion_r1552390907
##
lucene/core/src/java/org/apache/lucene/codecs/lucene99/Lucene99FlatVectorsWriter.java:
##
@@ -315,10 +316,13 @@ public CloseableRandomVectorScorerSupplier
merge
jpountz opened a new pull request, #13267:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13267
This switches the following files to `IOContext#RANDOM`:
- Stored fields data file.
- Term vectors data file.
- HNSW graph.
- Temporary file storing vectors at merge time that we use to
jpountz commented on PR #13222:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13222#issuecomment-2023049088
I opened #13229, is it what you had in mind?
--
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
jpountz commented on PR #13222:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13222#issuecomment-2022902471
> What do you think?
I had similar thoughts is mind, so that sounds good to me.
I'm still curious about how to fix the bigger issue wrt reader pooling.
Should `getMergeInsta
uschindler commented on PR #13222:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13222#issuecomment-2022362746
About the announced comment: When we merge we want to use sequential, as the
kernel may earlier free the pages. But actually I am not sure, if we really
need this: After merging the f
uschindler commented on PR #13222:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13222#issuecomment-2022357798
In addition, we should still look into getting the IOContexts correct when
we merge. The current solution is not ideal, but somehow not really changeable.
When you clone an indexinput
jpountz commented on PR #13222:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13222#issuecomment-2022301350
No worries, Uwe. Looking forward to your suggestions.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL abo
uschindler commented on PR #13222:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13222#issuecomment-2022255027
Hi, I have some problem regarding merging with it - and a suggestion. Please
hold with merging.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the messag
jpountz opened a new pull request, #13222:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13222
This switches the following files to `IOContext.RANDOM`:
- Stored fields data file.
- Term vectors data file.
- HNSW graph.
- Temporary file storing vectors at merge time that we use to
12 matches
Mail list logo
