similar to: Amount of writes during index creation

Olly Betts writes: > On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 03:25:01PM +0100, Jean-Francois Dockes wrote: > > I have had a problem report from a Recoll user about the amount of writes > > during index creation. > > > > https://opensourceprojects.eu/p/recoll1/tickets/67/ > > > > The issue is that the index is on SSD and that the amount of writes is > >

This is quite possibly part of the underlying write explosion that we ran into when we wrote: https://fastmail.blog/2014/12/01/email-search-system/ Which now almost 5 years on, has been running like a champion! We're really pleased with how well it works. Xapian reads from multiple databases are really easy, and the immediate writes onto tmpfs and daily compacts work really well. We also

A Recoll user gets the following message while indexing: "Attempted to delete or modify an entry in a non-existent posting list for #bannerholder" The exception happens during a commit call. Xapian version 1.4.11, Debian Buster A little more detail here: https://opensourceprojects.eu/p/recoll1/tickets/108/ I asked if this was reproducible, and to run the indexing in single-thread

On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 03:25:01PM +0100, Jean-Francois Dockes wrote: > I have had a problem report from a Recoll user about the amount of writes > during index creation. > > https://opensourceprojects.eu/p/recoll1/tickets/67/ > > The issue is that the index is on SSD and that the amount of writes is > significant compared to the SSD life expectancy (index size > 250 GB).

On 14/09/2018 at 09:30, Jean-Francois Dockes wrote: > Hi, > > You may be interested by how Recoll does it: > > https://www.lesbonscomptes.com/recoll/idxthreads/threadingRecoll.html > > A few things in the document are slightly obsolete (esp. the last > paragraph: recollindex now does use vfork()), but it's overall quite close > to how the current indexer works.

Olly Betts writes: > On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 09:54:36AM +0200, Jean-Francois Dockes wrote: > > The question which remains for me is if I should run xapian-compact > > after an initial indexing operation. I guess that this depends on the > > amount of expected updates and that there is no easy answer ? > > I think it's not obvious whether it's a good plan

Bron Gondwana writes: > This is quite possibly part of the underlying write explosion that we ran into when we wrote: > > https://fastmail.blog/2014/12/01/email-search-system/ > > Which now almost 5 years on, has been running like a champion! We're really pleased with how well it works. Xapian reads from multiple databases are really easy, and the immediate writes onto

Olly Betts writes: > On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 04:47:01PM +0200, Jean-Francois Dockes wrote: > > Some might notice the 50% index size increase. Excessive index size is > > already one relatively rare, but recurring complaint. Except if I did > > something wrong: I'm actually quite surprised by it. > > Did you try compacting the resulting databases? > >

I seem to be seeing cases where I call db.delete_document(somedocid) with no error, then flush() and delete the database object, but the document is still there after process exit. The write lock is normally deleted, so it appears that the database close finished normally. If I then then call delete_document(somedocid) from another command/process, this time it goes away. I've been seeing

Olly Betts writes: > On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 02:53:14AM +0000, Bob Cargill wrote: > > I am the recoll user mentioned in the first post above. I still have a copy > > of the (potentially) corrupted index and I did the requested testing. > > > > I ran delve -t '' ./xapiandb on the index and it returned a very long list > > of document IDs, separated

On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 08:44:44PM +0100, Jean-Francois Dockes wrote: > I have run a number of tests, with data mostly from a project gutenberg dvd > and other books, with relatively modest index sizes, from 1 to 24 GB. > > Quite curiously, in this zone, with all Xapian versions I tried, the ratio > from index size to the amount of writes is roughly proportional to the index >

Hi, I have a user reporting the following error during recoll indexing: flush() failed: Db block overwritten - are there multiple writers? "flush() failed" is from recoll, the rest is, I think the text of the Xapian exception. This is with Xapian 1.4.3 on Linux (I asked for more details, should be coming). I don't think that I've ever seen this error, and I also

On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 09:42:09AM +0200, Jean-Francois Dockes wrote: > A Recoll user gets the following message while indexing: > > "Attempted to delete or modify an entry in a non-existent posting list for #bannerholder" > > The exception happens during a commit call. Xapian version 1.4.11, Debian Buster > > A little more detail here:

Hi, I have had reports that Recoll has become unbearingly slow in some instances. After inquiry, this happens with Xapian 1.4 only, and the part which does not work any more is the snippets extraction. Recoll builds snippets by partially reconstructing documents out of index contents. For this, after determining a set of document term positions to be displayed (around the hopefully interesting

Olly Betts writes: > On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 10:29:09AM +0100, Jean-Francois Dockes wrote: > > Recoll builds snippets by partially reconstructing documents out of index > > contents. > > > [...] > > > > The specific operation which has become slow is opening many term position > > lists, each quite short. > > The difference will actually

Hi everybody, I'm the author of a small C++11 program called XDGSearch. The source code is hosted on Github, for a quick overview you can visit this link https://github.com/frank67/XDGSearch/blob/master/README.md I'm writing to the mailing list because I'd like to make the database build process splitted in more thread. Is it possible? If you are a C++ programmer you can take a look at

On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 08:15:55PM +0100, Jean-Francois Dockes wrote: > I have been playing at converting the index update stage of the Recoll indexer to use > multiple temporary indexes and a final merge. > > This yields an improvement factor of almost 3 (on my quad-core CPU), for the total > indexing time for "easy" files like HTML pages. This is nice (!) and I wanted

Olly Betts writes: > On Wed, Jan 04, 2017 at 07:29:58AM +0100, Jean-Francois Dockes wrote: > > Olly Betts writes: > > > The ticket has a patch which attempts to handle the OR case (which seems > > > to be the part you actually care about) but this suffers from issues with > > > object lifetimes which get a bit involved in the details. Since there >

Hi, A Recoll user is reporting an index corruption problem. In general, index corruption happens from time to time with Recoll, because of crashes, reboots, misc Recoll bugs, etc. The strange thing here is that xapian-check does not seem to detect anything. In a nutshell, some document numbers seem to point to a data blackhole: the docids are returned when searching for the file/doc unique

Hi, I am attaching a patch against the xapian-core 1.4 branch. On Windows with MSVC (probably mingw too but I did not test), it allows xapian-core to create and use an index located at a path containing arbitrary Unicode characters. As far as I could see, this does not work with the current code, and, from the question I asked on xapian-discuss nobody seems to have an obvious external solution