[xwiki-devs] Lucene search as default search?
Hi, Should we make the lucene search the default search or not? In the default XAR the Lucene search is marked as experimental. This has been the case for a long time now. I think we need to do something about this. Do you think the Lucene search is working well enough to be set as the default? WDYT? Thanks -Vincent
Hi Vincent, 22 opens issues on the lucene plugins seems to me a lot to put it as a default. Of course, I'd really like to see most of them solved, but some seems to me blocker issue to put the lucene plugins as the default: XPLUCENE-5 XPLUCENE-8 XPLUCENE-13 XPLUCENE-30 XPLUCENE-33 XPLUCENE-34 XPLUCENE-35 XPLUCENE-37 XPLUCENE-40 If search seems powerful (which the XWIki search is not), but is unreliable, I think that you will disappoint more than a less powerful but reliable solution (which the XWiki search is). WDYT ? Denis On Oct 26, 2009, at 21:00, Vincent Massol wrote:
Hi,
Should we make the lucene search the default search or not? In the default XAR the Lucene search is marked as experimental. This has been the case for a long time now.
I think we need to do something about this. Do you think the Lucene search is working well enough to be set as the default?
WDYT?
Thanks -Vincent _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
Hi, On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 6:33 PM, Denis Gervalle <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Vincent,
22 opens issues on the lucene plugins seems to me a lot to put it as a default. Of course, I'd really like to see most of them solved, but some seems to me blocker issue to put the lucene plugins as the default: XPLUCENE-5 XPLUCENE-8 XPLUCENE-13 XPLUCENE-30 XPLUCENE-33 XPLUCENE-34 XPLUCENE-35 XPLUCENE-37 XPLUCENE-40
If search seems powerful (which the XWIki search is not), but is unreliable, I think that you will disappoint more than a less powerful but reliable solution (which the XWiki search is).
I agree with Denis. We need to fix important bugs that make it unstable before putting it as the default search. I'd really like if a developer could spend some time working on the Lucene Plugin in the course of the 2.1 roadmap but so far it looks like we'll all be busy on other things... Guillaume WDYT ?
Denis
On Oct 26, 2009, at 21:00, Vincent Massol wrote:
Hi,
Should we make the lucene search the default search or not? In the default XAR the Lucene search is marked as experimental. This has been the case for a long time now.
I think we need to do something about this. Do you think the Lucene search is working well enough to be set as the default?
WDYT?
Thanks -Vincent _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
-- Guillaume Lerouge Product Manager - XWiki SAS Skype: wikibc Twitter: glerouge http://guillaumelerouge.com/
Hi, I've did some work on the Lucene plugin that should fix XPLUCENE-5, XPLUCENE-38 and XPLUCENE-40 and posted a patch here: http://jira.xwiki.org/jira/browse/XPLUCENE-5. There are more things that needs to be done. I have some comments and questions: * Why are there special "index" classes (IndexData/DocumentData/ObjectData/AttachmentData) that are stored in the queue? Why not just store XWikiDocuments and (or DocumentModelBridge) and XWikiAttachments directly? This would seem to save memory (the documents must be loaded to be indexed anyway) and reduce the load on the database (when the documents are already loaded). Maybe the idea was that by looking up the document as late as possible we will get a fresh version of it, and duplicated requests for updating a document are filtered out in the queue. But to me this seem to be a rare situation, and the way this was implemented, there was a race condition so the document was likely to be added twice anyway. * There are some code to support multiple indices, but it doesn't seem to be used and I doubt that it works. * The code contains lots of "catch (Exception e)" clauses. * Also, how threads are synchronized should be thought of more carefully. It seems that the keyword "synchronized" have been thrown in at various places "just in case". * To complete the upgrade to Lucene 2.9.0 the deprecated methods and classes should be replaced. For instance the now deprecated Hits class should be replaced with TopDocuments. * The methods IndexWriter::isLocked and IndexWriter::unlock in lucene seems unreliable. This is an obstacle for XPLUCENE-33. Best regards, Andreas Jonsson Guillaume Lerouge wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 6:33 PM, Denis Gervalle <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Vincent,
22 opens issues on the lucene plugins seems to me a lot to put it as a default. Of course, I'd really like to see most of them solved, but some seems to me blocker issue to put the lucene plugins as the default: XPLUCENE-5 XPLUCENE-8 XPLUCENE-13 XPLUCENE-30 XPLUCENE-33 XPLUCENE-34 XPLUCENE-35 XPLUCENE-37 XPLUCENE-40
If search seems powerful (which the XWIki search is not), but is unreliable, I think that you will disappoint more than a less powerful but reliable solution (which the XWiki search is).
I agree with Denis. We need to fix important bugs that make it unstable before putting it as the default search.
I'd really like if a developer could spend some time working on the Lucene Plugin in the course of the 2.1 roadmap but so far it looks like we'll all be busy on other things...
Guillaume
WDYT ?
Denis
On Oct 26, 2009, at 21:00, Vincent Massol wrote:
Hi,
Should we make the lucene search the default search or not? In the default XAR the Lucene search is marked as experimental. This has been the case for a long time now.
I think we need to do something about this. Do you think the Lucene search is working well enough to be set as the default?
WDYT?
Thanks -Vincent _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
Hi Andreas, On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 3:00 PM, Andreas Jonsson <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi,
I've did some work on the Lucene plugin that should fix XPLUCENE-5, XPLUCENE-38 and XPLUCENE-40 and posted a patch here: http://jira.xwiki.org/jira/browse/XPLUCENE-5.
Thanks for your contribution! The Lucene plugin definitely needs some love and your help is great. Guillaume
There are more things that needs to be done. I have some comments and questions:
* Why are there special "index" classes (IndexData/DocumentData/ObjectData/AttachmentData) that are stored in the queue? Why not just store XWikiDocuments and (or DocumentModelBridge) and XWikiAttachments directly? This would seem to save memory (the documents must be loaded to be indexed anyway) and reduce the load on the database (when the documents are already loaded). Maybe the idea was that by looking up the document as late as possible we will get a fresh version of it, and duplicated requests for updating a document are filtered out in the queue. But to me this seem to be a rare situation, and the way this was implemented, there was a race condition so the document was likely to be added twice anyway.
* There are some code to support multiple indices, but it doesn't seem to be used and I doubt that it works.
* The code contains lots of "catch (Exception e)" clauses.
* Also, how threads are synchronized should be thought of more carefully. It seems that the keyword "synchronized" have been thrown in at various places "just in case".
* To complete the upgrade to Lucene 2.9.0 the deprecated methods and classes should be replaced. For instance the now deprecated Hits class should be replaced with TopDocuments.
* The methods IndexWriter::isLocked and IndexWriter::unlock in lucene seems unreliable. This is an obstacle for XPLUCENE-33.
Best regards,
Andreas Jonsson
Guillaume Lerouge wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 6:33 PM, Denis Gervalle <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Vincent,
22 opens issues on the lucene plugins seems to me a lot to put it as a default. Of course, I'd really like to see most of them solved, but some seems to me blocker issue to put the lucene plugins as the default: XPLUCENE-5 XPLUCENE-8 XPLUCENE-13 XPLUCENE-30 XPLUCENE-33 XPLUCENE-34 XPLUCENE-35 XPLUCENE-37 XPLUCENE-40
If search seems powerful (which the XWIki search is not), but is unreliable, I think that you will disappoint more than a less powerful but reliable solution (which the XWiki search is).
I agree with Denis. We need to fix important bugs that make it unstable before putting it as the default search.
I'd really like if a developer could spend some time working on the Lucene Plugin in the course of the 2.1 roadmap but so far it looks like we'll all be busy on other things...
Guillaume
WDYT ?
Denis
On Oct 26, 2009, at 21:00, Vincent Massol wrote:
Hi,
Should we make the lucene search the default search or not? In the default XAR the Lucene search is marked as experimental. This has been the case for a long time now.
I think we need to do something about this. Do you think the Lucene search is working well enough to be set as the default?
WDYT?
Thanks -Vincent _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
-- Guillaume Lerouge Product Manager - XWiki SAS Skype: wikibc Twitter: glerouge http://guillaumelerouge.com/
Hello, I already use it as default (since 1.9.x) as I have a solution with too many data (mainly attached documents) to index and needed a more powerful indexation engine. Lucene works quite good for me but you are right, those open issues might be ennoying... I'm not expert enough to choose... Pascal On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 6:33 PM, Denis Gervalle <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Vincent,
22 opens issues on the lucene plugins seems to me a lot to put it as a default. Of course, I'd really like to see most of them solved, but some seems to me blocker issue to put the lucene plugins as the default: XPLUCENE-5 XPLUCENE-8 XPLUCENE-13 XPLUCENE-30 XPLUCENE-33 XPLUCENE-34 XPLUCENE-35 XPLUCENE-37 XPLUCENE-40
If search seems powerful (which the XWIki search is not), but is unreliable, I think that you will disappoint more than a less powerful but reliable solution (which the XWiki search is).
WDYT ?
Denis
On Oct 26, 2009, at 21:00, Vincent Massol wrote:
Hi,
Should we make the lucene search the default search or not? In the default XAR the Lucene search is marked as experimental. This has been the case for a long time now.
I think we need to do something about this. Do you think the Lucene search is working well enough to be set as the default?
WDYT?
Thanks -Vincent _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
On Oct 27, 2009, at 6:33 PM, Denis Gervalle wrote:
Hi Vincent,
22 opens issues on the lucene plugins seems to me a lot to put it as a default.
We have over 50 for the wysiwyg editor, but it doesn't mean it shouldn't be used as the default ;)
Of course, I'd really like to see most of them solved, but some seems to me blocker issue to put the lucene plugins as the default: XPLUCENE-5 XPLUCENE-8 XPLUCENE-13 XPLUCENE-30 XPLUCENE-33 XPLUCENE-34 XPLUCENE-35 XPLUCENE-37 XPLUCENE-40
If search seems powerful (which the XWIki search is not), but is unreliable, I think that you will disappoint more than a less powerful but reliable solution (which the XWiki search is).
WDYT ?
Yes I agree. Let's postpone till we fix some of these then. Thanks -Vincent
Denis
On Oct 26, 2009, at 21:00, Vincent Massol wrote:
Hi,
Should we make the lucene search the default search or not? In the default XAR the Lucene search is marked as experimental. This has been the case for a long time now.
I think we need to do something about this. Do you think the Lucene search is working well enough to be set as the default?
WDYT?
Thanks -Vincent
participants (5)
-
Andreas Jonsson -
Denis Gervalle -
Guillaume Lerouge -
Pascal Voitot -
Vincent Massol