github-actions[bot] commented on PR #14076:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/14076#issuecomment-2756055344
This PR has not had activity in the past 2 weeks, labeling it as stale. If
the PR is waiting for review, notify the d...@lucene.apache.org list. Thank you
for your contributi
jimczi commented on PR #14076:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/14076#issuecomment-2698222473
> I do think some APIs like updateReadAdvice and finishMerge are helpful, I
would want to see if we want to keep those and have a noop for this use case.
this api was added in [Lucene
10
shatejas commented on PR #14076:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/14076#issuecomment-2695220393
> For the exact case that was tested in
https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13985 that might be a regression. I am
challenging the result a bit here since I don't see how the copy tim
jimczi commented on PR #14076:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/14076#issuecomment-2694779286
> Is that truly the case or did I miss something?
That's probably the opposite. For the exact case that was tested in
https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13985 that might be a re
msokolov commented on PR #14076:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/14076#issuecomment-2694758015
I briefly skimmed the prior PR, which this effectively undoes, and I did not
see much benefit there in terms of improving merge times. Is that truly the
case or did I miss something? If
github-actions[bot] commented on PR #14076:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/14076#issuecomment-2591374368
This PR has not had activity in the past 2 weeks, labeling it as stale. If
the PR is waiting for review, notify the d...@lucene.apache.org list. Thank you
for your contributi
shatejas commented on PR #14076:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/14076#issuecomment-2566719988
> I may have overstated my point, I didn’t test it directly. My main concern
is that the advice applies for the entire duration of the merge. Since the
vector copy occurs at the start a
jimczi commented on PR #14076:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/14076#issuecomment-2563503703
Thanks for looking @shatejas
> The
https://github.com/opensearch-project/k-NN/issues/2134#issuecomment-2420793541
seemed to suggest it picked the last advice. I understand the setu
shatejas commented on PR #14076:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/14076#issuecomment-2558748026
> e.g. when search and merges are running at the same time
@jimczi, https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13985 was put out after a
discussion since there was the this tradeoff be
navneet1v commented on code in PR #14076:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/14076#discussion_r1889600647
##
lucene/core/src/java/org/apache/lucene/codecs/lucene99/Lucene99FlatVectorsFormat.java:
##
@@ -78,21 +79,23 @@ public final class Lucene99FlatVectorsFormat extends
jimczi commented on code in PR #14076:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/14076#discussion_r1888721064
##
lucene/core/src/java/org/apache/lucene/codecs/lucene99/Lucene99FlatVectorsWriter.java:
##
@@ -282,7 +285,7 @@ public CloseableRandomVectorScorerSupplier
mergeOneFie
ChrisHegarty commented on code in PR #14076:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/14076#discussion_r1888686757
##
lucene/core/src/java/org/apache/lucene/codecs/lucene99/Lucene99FlatVectorsWriter.java:
##
@@ -282,7 +285,7 @@ public CloseableRandomVectorScorerSupplier
merge
jimczi opened a new pull request, #14076:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/14076
This change reverts #13985 and makes sure each knn format sticks to a single
read advice consistently.
Switching read advice during merges might help some use cases, but it can
also hurt others—e.
13 matches
Mail list logo