-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 14
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
Fileset indexing: address performance issues and add configurability #156
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
11 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
84703a0
Add omero.search.max_fileset_size property
sbesson 6fe5251
Improve comment about cut-off rationale
sbesson d1112ae
Update legacy references to Trac
sbesson ff34496
Add performance warning to properties description
sbesson 1c01cd0
Only add templatePrefix once
sbesson 66f22be
Increase default max fileset size to 10
sbesson 8a5707b
Fix hyperlink markup
sbesson 5579ad7
Update src/main/java/ome/services/fulltext/FullTextBridge.java
sbesson 6d8d975
Convert maxFilesetSize into a property
sbesson db7a913
Rework the fileset indexing logic to index up to the cut-off
sbesson 23a8902
Skip the fileset indexing if maxFilesetSize is 0 (or lower)
sbesson File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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.
default in the constructor above is set to
1
.This could allow to pass any value including negative one. Maybe add a check
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.
Do you and/or anyone else who was involved in the initial review of the feature foresee a situation where someone would like to preserve the current behavior i.e. index all files in a fileset irrespectively of its size?
If so,
-1
(or any negative value?) could be used as a mechanism to skip the fileset size check, with all associated warnings re performance implications. Otherwise, I can make this default to 1 if it's negative.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.
I wasn't involved in the initial review or discussion around the feature back in late 2019. However, purely from a technical perspective I can see justification for leaving this open ended. If we add range checks here in the constructor they will apply to all subclasses and that seems like a bad design decision. There are other ways of doing this with Spring such as using properties rather than constructor arguments but I don't know if that's needed here.