Add support for merges in ES93BloomFilterStoredFieldsFormat#137622
Merged
fcofdez merged 10 commits intoelastic:mainfrom Nov 13, 2025
Merged
Add support for merges in ES93BloomFilterStoredFieldsFormat#137622fcofdez merged 10 commits intoelastic:mainfrom
fcofdez merged 10 commits intoelastic:mainfrom
Conversation
tlrx
approved these changes
Nov 7, 2025
|
|
||
| private void addToBloomFilter(FieldInfo info, BytesRef value) { | ||
| private int getBloomFilterSizeInBits() { | ||
| var bloomFilterSizeInBits = defaultBloomFilterSizeInBitsSupplier.getAsInt(); |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| var bloomFilterSizeInBits = defaultBloomFilterSizeInBitsSupplier.getAsInt(); | |
| int bloomFilterSizeInBits = defaultBloomFilterSizeInBitsSupplier.getAsInt(); |
| ); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| private void addToBloomFilter(FieldInfo info, BytesRef value) { |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
nit: maybe just pass the value? We're checking beforehand the field info.
| this.bitSetSizeInBytes = bitsetSizeInBits / Byte.SIZE; | ||
| this.buffer = bigArrays.newByteArray(bitSetSizeInBytes, false); | ||
| this.hashes = new int[numHashFunctions]; | ||
| this.bloomFilterDataOut = directory.createOutput(bloomFilterFileName(segmentInfo, segmentSuffix), context); |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
nit: maybe ensure bloomFilterDataOut is closed if writing the header fails?
| buffer.set(pos, val); | ||
| } | ||
| maybeInitializeBloomFilterWriter(info, getBloomFilterSizeInBits()); | ||
| bloomFilterWriter.addToBloomFilter(info, value); |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
nit: I would rename to:
Suggested change
| bloomFilterWriter.addToBloomFilter(info, value); | |
| bloomFilterWriter.add(value); |
| @Override | ||
| public int merge(MergeState mergeState) throws IOException { | ||
| // Skip merging the bloom filter for now | ||
| if (canOrBloomFilters(mergeState)) { |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
nit:
Suggested change
| if (canOrBloomFilters(mergeState)) { | |
| if (useOptimizedMerge(mergeState)) { |
| } | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| private void mergeBloomFiltersWithOr(MergeState mergeState) throws IOException { |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| private void mergeBloomFiltersWithOr(MergeState mergeState) throws IOException { | |
| private void mergeOptimized(MergeState mergeState) throws IOException { |
|
|
||
| for (int readerIdx = 0; readerIdx < mergeState.storedFieldsReaders.length; readerIdx++) { | ||
| StoredFieldsReader storedFieldsReader = mergeState.storedFieldsReaders[readerIdx]; | ||
| if (storedFieldsReader instanceof Reader reader) { |
| bloomFilterFieldReader.checkIntegrity(); | ||
| IndexInput bloomFilterData = bloomFilterFieldReader.bloomFilterData; | ||
|
|
||
| bloomFilterData.prefetch(0, bitSetSizeInBytes); |
| final FieldsProducer f = mergeState.fieldsProducers[readerIndex]; | ||
|
|
||
| final int maxDoc = mergeState.maxDocs[readerIndex]; | ||
| if (f != null) { |
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In theory yes, if the segment doesn't have terms stored.
| final int maxDoc = mergeState.maxDocs[readerIndex]; | ||
| if (f != null) { | ||
| // This can be somewhat expensive and we'll check the integrity again while merging the terms, should we skip it? | ||
| f.checkIntegrity(); |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think it's OK to keep it: it should always be used with the synthetic _id postings formats which does nothing in checkIntegrity
Collaborator
|
Pinging @elastic/es-storage-engine (Team:StorageEngine) |
Collaborator
|
Hi @fcofdez, I've created a changelog YAML for you. |
kkrik-es
approved these changes
Nov 11, 2025
Contributor
kkrik-es
left a comment
kkrik-es
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Please wait for @martijnvg to approve.
Contributor
Author
|
@elasticmachine update branch |
Contributor
Author
|
@elasticmachine update branch |
Contributor
Author
|
@elasticmachine update branch |
Contributor
Author
|
@elasticmachine update branch |
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
6 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.
No description provided.