Initial upgrade to lucene v9.7.0 #585
Conversation
| payloadField, | ||
| contextField); | ||
| } | ||
| } catch (IOException e) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Wouldn't it be more debug friendly if you catch the exception for each if/else block separately? I'm not too sure if it's obvious from the exception message which block is throwing it.
| @@ -142,20 +140,6 @@ public Directory open(Path path, IndexPreloadConfig preloadConfig) throws IOExce | |||
| return new NIOFSDirectory(path); | |||
| } | |||
| }; | |||
| } else if (dirImpl.equals("SimpleFSDirectory")) { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think javadoc for this method needs to be updated.
| return new SimpleFSDirectory(path); | ||
| } | ||
| }; | ||
| } else if (dirImpl.equals("RAMDirectory")) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It seems ByteBuffersDirectory is the replacement for RAMDirectory. Is it straightforward to add it here, or it's outside the scope of this PR?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That is beyond the scope of this branch. I don't think the ram directory even worked, and there was no test coverage.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
IMO it's okay to remove RAMDirectory. If someone wants a temporary in-memory index they can just skip calling commit.
| // The value is stored in a BINARY field, but it is always a String | ||
| BinaryDocValues binaryDocValues = DocValues.getBinary(context.reader(), getName()); | ||
| if (docValuesType == DocValuesType.SORTED) { | ||
| SortedDocValues binaryDocValues = DocValues.getSorted(context.reader(), getName()); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
nit: r/binaryDocValues/sortedDocValues
|
|
||
| /** Implements per-index {@link Codec}. */ | ||
| public class ServerCodec extends Lucene84Codec { | ||
| public class ServerCodec extends Lucene95Codec { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do we want to maintain compatibility with Lucene 8 indices? https://github.com/apache/lucene/blob/main/lucene/backward-codecs/src/java/org/apache/lucene/backward_codecs/lucene84/Lucene84Codec.java
Can also add later if needed.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is something that will require some testing to see what is needed to fully support a v8 index. This can be evaluated later as needed.
First pass at upgrading to lucene v9.7.0. Mostly focused on fixing compilation errors and getting the tests passing.