-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 24.3k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Switch to Lucene's new IntField/LongField/FloatField/DoubleField. #93165
Conversation
Lucene introduced new numeric fields that index both points and doc values. This has the same semantics as indexing one field for points and another one for doc values as we did before, but covering both data structures in a single field yielded a speedup in Lucene's nightly benchmarks (see annotation [AH](http://people.apache.org/~mikemccand/lucenebench/sparseResults.html#index_throughput)) which would be interesting to get too. This commit does not switch to factory methods for queries such as `LongField#newRangeQuery` for now, we'll need to look into it in a follow-up.
Hi @jpountz, I've created a changelog YAML for you. |
Pinging @elastic/es-search (Team:Search) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We should add to UnsignedLongFieldMapper
as well I think. It also has doc values and is indexed.
} else { | ||
context.addToFieldNames(fieldType().name()); | ||
} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Previously, we only called addToFieldNames
if at least store
was true. Now, we call addToFieldNames
no matter the store
value. Is this intentional?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks for catching this, I had in my mind that we should add to field names whenever doc values is false, but this field and others do indeed only do this if the field is either indexed or stored as well.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM
the bwc test failure is one that has happened before, does not look like it's caused by your test, see #92058 . The percolator failure seems legit :) |
Absolutely, it's caused by apache/lucene#12109. The test failure should go away when we upgrade to the final release. |
@elasticmachine update branch |
@jpountz you were right about the percolator test failure, also auto-merge for the win here :) |
…astic#93165) Lucene introduced new numeric fields that index both points and doc values. This has the same semantics as indexing one field for points and another one for doc values as we did before, but covering both data structures in a single field yielded a speedup in Lucene's nightly benchmarks (see annotation [AH](http://people.apache.org/~mikemccand/lucenebench/sparseResults.html#index_throughput)) which would be interesting to get too. This commit does not switch to factory methods for queries such as `LongField#newRangeQuery` for now, we'll need to look into it in a follow-up.
Lucene introduced new numeric fields that index both points and doc values. This has the same semantics as indexing one field for points and another one for doc values as we did before, but covering both data structures in a single field yielded a speedup in Lucene's nightly benchmarks (see annotation AH) which would be interesting to get too.
This commit does not switch to factory methods for queries such as
LongField#newRangeQuery
for now, we'll need to look into it in a follow-up.