Upgrade elasticsearch to lucene 10.3.0#133980
Closed
romseygeek wants to merge 295 commits intoelastic:mainfrom
Closed
Upgrade elasticsearch to lucene 10.3.0#133980romseygeek wants to merge 295 commits intoelastic:mainfrom
romseygeek wants to merge 295 commits intoelastic:mainfrom
Conversation
…28240) There are a few different things going on in this PR, all of which are required to get the lucene_snspahot branch building again, but the most substantial is the update to the new Lucene 10.3 postings format, Lucene103PostingsFormat. The Lucene90BlockTreeTermsWriter class is used in the implementation of the 10.1 postings codec in Lucene. With the new 10.3 postings format that class is no longer needed, so it has been moved to a test-only location, in order to support backward compatibility testing. In Elasticsearch we were using Lucene90BlockTreeTermsWriter (from Lucene) directly, through our copy of the Lucene 9.0 postings format, namely ES812PostingsFormat. So if you look at ES812PostingsFormat , you should that the imports should now show that we're using our own copy. Additionally, changes are required because of the removal of deprecated methods in IOContext, as well as the override of hints for direct IO. Co-authored-by: Simon Cooper <simon.cooper@elastic.co>
DirectIOIT requires a filesystem that supports Direct IO. The Elasticsearch CI builds and tests on a tmpfs, /dev/shm/bk, which does not support O_DIRECT.
romseygeek
force-pushed
the
lucene_snapshot_10_3
branch
from
375c2de to
e092b1f
Compare
Make sure that data lands in both ranges so we properly emulate the non-optimized case. Closes elastic#128471
Collaborator
|
Hi @romseygeek, I've created a changelog YAML for you. |
ChrisHegarty
approved these changes
Sep 15, 2025
Contributor
ChrisHegarty
left a comment
ChrisHegarty
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks @romseygeek LGTM
iverase
reviewed
Sep 15, 2025
benwtrent
reviewed
Sep 15, 2025
Member
benwtrent
left a comment
benwtrent
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
looking great!
I will add some notes of my own to the changes in a little bit.
Comment on lines
6
to
7
| build: | ||
| branch: branch_10x |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
don't think we need this change now that we are hitting a released version?
| public static final IndexVersion EXCLUDE_SOURCE_VECTORS_DEFAULT = def(9_035_0_00, Version.LUCENE_10_2_2); | ||
| public static final IndexVersion DISABLE_NORMS_BY_DEFAULT_FOR_LOGSDB_AND_TSDB = def(9_036_0_00, Version.LUCENE_10_2_2); | ||
|
|
||
| public static final IndexVersion UPGRADE_TO_LUCENE_10_3_0 = def(9_050_00_0, Version.LUCENE_10_3_0); |
| DOC_VALUES_SKIPPER("es.doc_values_skipper_feature_flag_enabled=true", Version.fromString("8.18.1"), null), | ||
| USE_LUCENE101_POSTINGS_FORMAT("es.use_lucene101_postings_format_feature_flag_enabled=true", Version.fromString("9.1.0"), null), | ||
| USE_LUCENE1013POSTINGS_FORMAT("es.use_lucene103_postings_format_feature_flag_enabled=true", Version.fromString("9.2.0"), null), | ||
| INFERENCE_CUSTOM_SERVICE_ENABLED("es.inference_custom_service_feature_flag_enabled=true", Version.fromString("8.19.0"), null), |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
these seems weird...I wonder why we have custom inference service here, but not in main?
@martijnvg about the 103 postings. Do we want to keep that in feature flat same as 101?
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks like it was a merge error, I'll remove the inference service flag.
benwtrent
added
the
cloud-deploy
…ucene_snapshot_10_3
romseygeek
added
the
auto-merge-without-approval
This file contains hidden or 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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
9 participants
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.
Notable changes in 10.3: