Atri, First of all, I'd recommend going through the Ignite ticket to gather information about the current implementation issues and users' wants. Then look at a code to get a complete understanding of how things work now, which may help in future decisions.
As we use the outdated Lucene version, some things may be irrelevant for the latest Lucene version. So, you will need expertise in the internals of modern Lucene version to understand what capabilities, guarantees, and limitations Lucene has and could bring to the Ignite. The expertise could be got from the Lucene project code or Lucene project dev-list. As for now, the potential capabilities are not clear to me. At first glance, I see the next topics that must be covered at first: General questions * How Lucene index can be split among the nodes? * If we'll have a single index for all partitions on the particular node, then how index records will be aware of partitioning? This is important to filter out backup records from the results to avoid duplicates. * How results from several nodes can be merged on the Reduce stage? * Does Lucene supports smth like JOIN operation or others that may require data from another partition or index? If so, then it likes to multistep query with merging results on intermediate stages and requires detailed investigation and design. It is ok if Ignite will have some limitations here, but we would like to know about them at the early stage. * How effectively map Lucene files to the page memory? Is it even possible? Otherwise, how to deal with potential OOM on large queries and memory capacity planning? Persistence. * How and what consistency guarantees could we have/expect? Seems, we may not be able to write physical records for Lucene index to our WAL. What can we do with this? Transactions. * Will we support transactions? * Should Lucene be aware of Transaction and track mvcc (or whatever) versions for the records? * What will be consistency guarantees? UX * How to add FullText search queries syntax into Calcite? * AFAIK, the Lucene index has many properties for tuning. How will the user configure the index? * How and where to store the settings? What are cluster-wide and what a local to the particular node? * Will be all the settings immutable? Can be they changed on-fly? after node/grid restart? * Any limitations on query syntax? SQL * Will we support FullText search in SQL? * How to integrate Lucene index into Calcite? What is the cost model? Splitting rules? Traits? * What about consistency with DDL operations, e.g. column rename? Ignite indices will operate column ID, so rename operation will not affect the index. With all of this, you can go with the IEP (or even some short summary) and further POC and implementation. That's a big deal, so let's discuss what could be done here. On Fri, Jul 23, 2021 at 12:58 PM Atri Sharma <a...@apache.org> wrote: > I am actually happy to drive the feature for Ignite 3. FTS is very > important for me and I think Ignite users will benefit from it > greatly. > > If it makes sense to be focusing on Ignite 3 for this capability, I am > eager to contribute there and lead the development. > > Please share your thoughts. > > On Fri, Jul 23, 2021 at 3:21 PM Andrey Mashenkov > <andrey.mashen...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Hi Atri, > > > > All the Jira tickets we have on the Full-text search (FTS) thing are > > targeted to Ignite 2. > > > > AFAIK, we want, but we have NOT committed to FTS support in Ignite 3, > yet. > > By the way, we are getting requests for this thing from the user side, > and > > definitely, > > FTS would be a valuable feature for Ignite. > > > > It will be great if the one wants to drive it, any help will be > appreciated. > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 23, 2021 at 12:12 PM Atri Sharma <a...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > An update, please. I am working through persistence of Lucene index > using > > > Ignite Dictionary, and will be asking some questions soon. > > > > > > I had one doubt - - where does this change go? Ignite 3? > > > > > > Also, I know we want to build native support for text searches in > Ignite 3. > > > Is the work I am proposing here part of that, or will that be a > separate > > > effort? > > > > > > On Mon, 28 Jun 2021, 19:20 Ilya Kasnacheev, <ilya.kasnach...@gmail.com > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hello! > > > > > > > > I think that number one is the most important one, then maybe it > will see > > > > more use and other deficiencies become more apparent, leading to more > > > > tickets and visibility. > > > > > > > > Maybe 2. and 3. will even use a different approach when persistence > is > > > > implemented. > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > -- > > > > Ilya Kasnacheev > > > > > > > > > > > > пн, 28 июн. 2021 г. в 14:34, Atri Sharma <a...@apache.org>: > > > > > > > > > Hello Again! > > > > > > > > > > I have been looking into the aforementioned and here are my follow > up > > > > > thoughts: > > > > > > > > > > 1. Support persistence of Lucene indexes. > > > > > 2. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12401 (Needs > fixing of > > > > > moving partitions first) > > > > > 3. Figure out how to return scores from nodes and use them as sort > > > > > parameters on the coordinator node > > > > > (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12291) > > > > > > > > > > Please let me know if this looks ok to make text queries > functional? > > > > > > > > > > Atri > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 21, 2021 at 2:49 PM Alexei Scherbakov > > > > > <alexey.scherbak...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi. > > > > > > > > > > > > One of the biggest issues with text queries is a lack of support > for > > > > > lucene > > > > > > indices persistence, which makes this functionality useless if a > > > > > > persistence is enabled. > > > > > > > > > > > > I would first take care of it. > > > > > > > > > > > > пн, 21 июн. 2021 г. в 12:16, Maksim Timonin < > timonin.ma...@gmail.com > > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, Atri! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You're right, Actually there is a lack of support for > TextQueries. > > > > For > > > > > the > > > > > > > last ticket I'm doing I see some obvious issues with them (no > page > > > > size > > > > > > > support, for example). I'm glad that somebody wants to maintain > > > this > > > > > > > functionality. Thanks a lot! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For the MergeSort algorithm there is already a patch for that > [1]. > > > > It's > > > > > > > currently on review. This patch introduces an abstract reducer > for > > > > > > > CacheQueries with 2 implementations (unordered, merge-sort). > Then > > > > > TextQuery > > > > > > > leverages on MergeSort to order results from multiple nodes by > > > score. > > > > > This > > > > > > > patch also fixes the pageSize issue, I've mentioned before. > Could > > > you > > > > > > > please check if it fully matches your idea? Any issues or > comments > > > > are > > > > > > > welcome. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've prepared this ticket, because I need the MergeSort > algorithm > > > for > > > > > the > > > > > > > new type of queries I'm implementing (IndexQuery, it should > also > > > > > provide > > > > > > > ordered results over multiple nodes). Currently I'm not > planning to > > > > go > > > > > > > further with TextQuery, so if you're going to support this > it'll > > > be a > > > > > great > > > > > > > contribution, I think. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14703 > > > > > > > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/9081 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 21, 2021 at 11:11 AM Atri Sharma <a...@apache.org> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi All, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have been looking into our text queries support and see > that it > > > > has > > > > > > > > limited community support. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Therefore, I volunteer to be the maintainer of the module and > > > work > > > > on > > > > > > > > enhancing it further. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > First goal would be to move to Lucene 8.x, then work on > sorted > > > > reduce > > > > > > > > - merge across nodes. Fundamentally, this is doable since > Lucene > > > > > ranks > > > > > > > > documents according to their score, and documents are > returned in > > > > the > > > > > > > > order of their score. Since the scoring function is > homogeneous, > > > > this > > > > > > > > means that across nodes, we can compare scores and merge > sort. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please let me know if I can take this up. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Atri > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Atri > > > > > > > > Apache Concerted > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > Alexei Scherbakov > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > Atri > > > > > Apache Concerted > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Best regards, > > Andrey V. Mashenkov > > -- > Regards, > > Atri > Apache Concerted > -- Best regards, Andrey V. Mashenkov
