Mailing List Archive

There are no good reasons to do Java 17 and it is way too early.



Reagrding real optimizations, Lucene 17 is unfortunately not containing Project Panama or Vector API, so it looks more like Java 18/19 is a good candidate as a new minimum at a later stage.



I’d release Lucene 9 with Java 11 (which is LTS) and then decide later if we update to some post-17 version to get the new vector and panama APIs (vector search, SIMD and also MMapDirectory v2). If we do this, we should simply release Lucene 10.



Uwe



-----

Uwe Schindler

Achterdiek 19, D-28357 Bremen

<https://www.thetaphi.de> https://www.thetaphi.de

eMail: uwe@thetaphi.de



From: Mike Drob <mdrob@apache.org>
Sent: Monday, September 13, 2021 8:00 PM
To: Solr/Lucene Dev <dev@lucene.apache.org>
Subject: Java 11/17 Version Matrix



Hi Devs,



What are our thoughts on Java 11 and 17 version compatibility going forward for Lucene 9? Will we support both? If so, would Java 11 support likely continue for the entire 9.x release line?



Is there a JIRA tracking this?



Thanks,

Mike

+1, I think the main thing to watch out for is project panama. If we
get a 18.x/19.x release with non-incubating APIs, I think it makes
sense to create a new major Lucene version. Even if it isn't an
OpenJDK LTS release. It could really change a lot, especially
regarding hotspots in the code such as postings/dv compression. So it
would be great to allow a lot of folks to make a "take two" on these
algorithms with vectorization in mind. This is just my opinion.

On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 2:10 PM Uwe Schindler <uwe@thetaphi.de> wrote:
>
> There are no good reasons to do Java 17 and it is way too early.
>
>
>
> Reagrding real optimizations, Lucene 17 is unfortunately not containing Project Panama or Vector API, so it looks more like Java 18/19 is a good candidate as a new minimum at a later stage.
>
>
>
> I’d release Lucene 9 with Java 11 (which is LTS) and then decide later if we update to some post-17 version to get the new vector and panama APIs (vector search, SIMD and also MMapDirectory v2). If we do this, we should simply release Lucene 10.
>
>
>
> Uwe
>
>
>
> -----
>
> Uwe Schindler
>
> Achterdiek 19, D-28357 Bremen
>
> https://www.thetaphi.de
>
> eMail: uwe@thetaphi.de
>
>
>
> From: Mike Drob <mdrob@apache.org>
> Sent: Monday, September 13, 2021 8:00 PM
> To: Solr/Lucene Dev <dev@lucene.apache.org>
> Subject: Java 11/17 Version Matrix
>
>
>
> Hi Devs,
>
>
>
> What are our thoughts on Java 11 and 17 version compatibility going forward for Lucene 9? Will we support both? If so, would Java 11 support likely continue for the entire 9.x release line?
>
>
>
> Is there a JIRA tracking this?
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mike

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org

I agree with Uwe and Robert. JDK11, then the min bar should move if there
is something that brings value (be it performance, LTS or some other
attractive option).

Dawid

On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 8:15 PM Robert Muir <rcmuir@gmail.com> wrote:

> +1, I think the main thing to watch out for is project panama. If we
> get a 18.x/19.x release with non-incubating APIs, I think it makes
> sense to create a new major Lucene version. Even if it isn't an
> OpenJDK LTS release. It could really change a lot, especially
> regarding hotspots in the code such as postings/dv compression. So it
> would be great to allow a lot of folks to make a "take two" on these
> algorithms with vectorization in mind. This is just my opinion.
>
> On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 2:10 PM Uwe Schindler <uwe@thetaphi.de> wrote:
> >
> > There are no good reasons to do Java 17 and it is way too early.
> >
> >
> >
> > Reagrding real optimizations, Lucene 17 is unfortunately not containing
> Project Panama or Vector API, so it looks more like Java 18/19 is a good
> candidate as a new minimum at a later stage.
> >
> >
> >
> > I’d release Lucene 9 with Java 11 (which is LTS) and then decide later
> if we update to some post-17 version to get the new vector and panama APIs
> (vector search, SIMD and also MMapDirectory v2). If we do this, we should
> simply release Lucene 10.
> >
> >
> >
> > Uwe
> >
> >
> >
> > -----
> >
> > Uwe Schindler
> >
> > Achterdiek 19, D-28357 Bremen
> >
> > https://www.thetaphi.de
> >
> > eMail: uwe@thetaphi.de
> >
> >
> >
> > From: Mike Drob <mdrob@apache.org>
> > Sent: Monday, September 13, 2021 8:00 PM
> > To: Solr/Lucene Dev <dev@lucene.apache.org>
> > Subject: Java 11/17 Version Matrix
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi Devs,
> >
> >
> >
> > What are our thoughts on Java 11 and 17 version compatibility going
> forward for Lucene 9? Will we support both? If so, would Java 11 support
> likely continue for the entire 9.x release line?
> >
> >
> >
> > Is there a JIRA tracking this?
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Mike
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>

In addition: we test for compatibility with Java 17 (both Lucene and Solr), so consumer is still able to use any version and has enough flexibility.

Uwe

Am 13. September 2021 18:52:53 UTC schrieb Dawid Weiss <dawid.weiss@gmail.com>:
>I agree with Uwe and Robert. JDK11, then the min bar should move if there
>is something that brings value (be it performance, LTS or some other
>attractive option).
>
>Dawid
>
>On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 8:15 PM Robert Muir <rcmuir@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> +1, I think the main thing to watch out for is project panama. If we
>> get a 18.x/19.x release with non-incubating APIs, I think it makes
>> sense to create a new major Lucene version. Even if it isn't an
>> OpenJDK LTS release. It could really change a lot, especially
>> regarding hotspots in the code such as postings/dv compression. So it
>> would be great to allow a lot of folks to make a "take two" on these
>> algorithms with vectorization in mind. This is just my opinion.
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 2:10 PM Uwe Schindler <uwe@thetaphi.de> wrote:
>> >
>> > There are no good reasons to do Java 17 and it is way too early.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Reagrding real optimizations, Lucene 17 is unfortunately not containing
>> Project Panama or Vector API, so it looks more like Java 18/19 is a good
>> candidate as a new minimum at a later stage.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > I’d release Lucene 9 with Java 11 (which is LTS) and then decide later
>> if we update to some post-17 version to get the new vector and panama APIs
>> (vector search, SIMD and also MMapDirectory v2). If we do this, we should
>> simply release Lucene 10.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Uwe
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > -----
>> >
>> > Uwe Schindler
>> >
>> > Achterdiek 19, D-28357 Bremen
>> >
>> > https://www.thetaphi.de
>> >
>> > eMail: uwe@thetaphi.de
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > From: Mike Drob <mdrob@apache.org>
>> > Sent: Monday, September 13, 2021 8:00 PM
>> > To: Solr/Lucene Dev <dev@lucene.apache.org>
>> > Subject: Java 11/17 Version Matrix
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Hi Devs,
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > What are our thoughts on Java 11 and 17 version compatibility going
>> forward for Lucene 9? Will we support both? If so, would Java 11 support
>> likely continue for the entire 9.x release line?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Is there a JIRA tracking this?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> >
>> > Mike
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>>
>>

--
Uwe Schindler
Achterdiek 19, 28357 Bremen
https://www.thetaphi.de

I think we should discuss options when Project Panama is released. Doing
frequent major releases forces users to reindex more often. If Project
Panama was released shortly and we decided to release Lucene 10
immediately, this would force users to reindex their 8.x data to be able to
upgrade, I know of many Elasticsearch users for whom it would cause
headaches and I suspect that it's no different for Solr users and many
direct users of Lucene. I'd rather look into publishing a MR JAR of bumping
the minimum required Java version in a minor release than releasing Lucene
10.0 less than 1 year after 9.0.

On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 9:19 PM Uwe Schindler <uwe@thetaphi.de> wrote:

> In addition: we test for compatibility with Java 17 (both Lucene and
> Solr), so consumer is still able to use any version and has enough
> flexibility.
>
> Uwe
>
> Am 13. September 2021 18:52:53 UTC schrieb Dawid Weiss <
> dawid.weiss@gmail.com>:
>>
>>
>> I agree with Uwe and Robert. JDK11, then the min bar should move if there
>> is something that brings value (be it performance, LTS or some other
>> attractive option).
>>
>> Dawid
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 8:15 PM Robert Muir <rcmuir@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> +1, I think the main thing to watch out for is project panama. If we
>>> get a 18.x/19.x release with non-incubating APIs, I think it makes
>>> sense to create a new major Lucene version. Even if it isn't an
>>> OpenJDK LTS release. It could really change a lot, especially
>>> regarding hotspots in the code such as postings/dv compression. So it
>>> would be great to allow a lot of folks to make a "take two" on these
>>> algorithms with vectorization in mind. This is just my opinion.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 2:10 PM Uwe Schindler <uwe@thetaphi.de> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > There are no good reasons to do Java 17 and it is way too early.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Reagrding real optimizations, Lucene 17 is unfortunately not
>>> containing Project Panama or Vector API, so it looks more like Java 18/19
>>> is a good candidate as a new minimum at a later stage.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > I’d release Lucene 9 with Java 11 (which is LTS) and then decide later
>>> if we update to some post-17 version to get the new vector and panama APIs
>>> (vector search, SIMD and also MMapDirectory v2). If we do this, we should
>>> simply release Lucene 10.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Uwe
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > -----
>>> >
>>> > Uwe Schindler
>>> >
>>> > Achterdiek 19, D-28357 Bremen
>>> >
>>> > https://www.thetaphi.de
>>> >
>>> > eMail: uwe@thetaphi.de
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > From: Mike Drob <mdrob@apache.org>
>>> > Sent: Monday, September 13, 2021 8:00 PM
>>> > To: Solr/Lucene Dev <dev@lucene.apache.org>
>>> > Subject: Java 11/17 Version Matrix
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Hi Devs,
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > What are our thoughts on Java 11 and 17 version compatibility going
>>> forward for Lucene 9? Will we support both? If so, would Java 11 support
>>> likely continue for the entire 9.x release line?
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Is there a JIRA tracking this?
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Thanks,
>>> >
>>> > Mike
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>>>
>>> --
> Uwe Schindler
> Achterdiek 19, 28357 Bremen
> https://www.thetaphi.de
>


--
Adrien

Sorry, this is a bogus argument. Nobody is holding a gun to anyone's
head and forcing them to upgrade.

When we have new major functionality, we should be able to issue new
major releases, to hell with elasticsearch users.

On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 4:19 AM Adrien Grand <jpountz@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I think we should discuss options when Project Panama is released. Doing frequent major releases forces users to reindex more often. If Project Panama was released shortly and we decided to release Lucene 10 immediately, this would force users to reindex their 8.x data to be able to upgrade, I know of many Elasticsearch users for whom it would cause headaches and I suspect that it's no different for Solr users and many direct users of Lucene. I'd rather look into publishing a MR JAR of bumping the minimum required Java version in a minor release than releasing Lucene 10.0 less than 1 year after 9.0.
>
> On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 9:19 PM Uwe Schindler <uwe@thetaphi.de> wrote:
>>
>> In addition: we test for compatibility with Java 17 (both Lucene and Solr), so consumer is still able to use any version and has enough flexibility.
>>
>> Uwe
>>
>> Am 13. September 2021 18:52:53 UTC schrieb Dawid Weiss <dawid.weiss@gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>
>>> I agree with Uwe and Robert. JDK11, then the min bar should move if there is something that brings value (be it performance, LTS or some other attractive option).
>>>
>>> Dawid
>>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 8:15 PM Robert Muir <rcmuir@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> +1, I think the main thing to watch out for is project panama. If we
>>>> get a 18.x/19.x release with non-incubating APIs, I think it makes
>>>> sense to create a new major Lucene version. Even if it isn't an
>>>> OpenJDK LTS release. It could really change a lot, especially
>>>> regarding hotspots in the code such as postings/dv compression. So it
>>>> would be great to allow a lot of folks to make a "take two" on these
>>>> algorithms with vectorization in mind. This is just my opinion.
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 2:10 PM Uwe Schindler <uwe@thetaphi.de> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > There are no good reasons to do Java 17 and it is way too early.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > Reagrding real optimizations, Lucene 17 is unfortunately not containing Project Panama or Vector API, so it looks more like Java 18/19 is a good candidate as a new minimum at a later stage.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > I’d release Lucene 9 with Java 11 (which is LTS) and then decide later if we update to some post-17 version to get the new vector and panama APIs (vector search, SIMD and also MMapDirectory v2). If we do this, we should simply release Lucene 10.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > Uwe
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > -----
>>>> >
>>>> > Uwe Schindler
>>>> >
>>>> > Achterdiek 19, D-28357 Bremen
>>>> >
>>>> > https://www.thetaphi.de
>>>> >
>>>> > eMail: uwe@thetaphi.de
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > From: Mike Drob <mdrob@apache.org>
>>>> > Sent: Monday, September 13, 2021 8:00 PM
>>>> > To: Solr/Lucene Dev <dev@lucene.apache.org>
>>>> > Subject: Java 11/17 Version Matrix
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > Hi Devs,
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > What are our thoughts on Java 11 and 17 version compatibility going forward for Lucene 9? Will we support both? If so, would Java 11 support likely continue for the entire 9.x release line?
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > Is there a JIRA tracking this?
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > Thanks,
>>>> >
>>>> > Mike
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>>>>
>> --
>> Uwe Schindler
>> Achterdiek 19, 28357 Bremen
>> https://www.thetaphi.de
>
>
>
> --
> Adrien

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org

Let's wait for this functionality and see what happens. If the gain is
significant then this provides an incentive to upgrade for everyone.
MR-JARs will be a pain to keep consistent...

Dawid

On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 10:19 AM Adrien Grand <jpountz@gmail.com> wrote:

> I think we should discuss options when Project Panama is released. Doing
> frequent major releases forces users to reindex more often. If Project
> Panama was released shortly and we decided to release Lucene 10
> immediately, this would force users to reindex their 8.x data to be able to
> upgrade, I know of many Elasticsearch users for whom it would cause
> headaches and I suspect that it's no different for Solr users and many
> direct users of Lucene. I'd rather look into publishing a MR JAR of bumping
> the minimum required Java version in a minor release than releasing Lucene
> 10.0 less than 1 year after 9.0.
>
> On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 9:19 PM Uwe Schindler <uwe@thetaphi.de> wrote:
>
>> In addition: we test for compatibility with Java 17 (both Lucene and
>> Solr), so consumer is still able to use any version and has enough
>> flexibility.
>>
>> Uwe
>>
>> Am 13. September 2021 18:52:53 UTC schrieb Dawid Weiss <
>> dawid.weiss@gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>
>>> I agree with Uwe and Robert. JDK11, then the min bar should move if
>>> there is something that brings value (be it performance, LTS or some other
>>> attractive option).
>>>
>>> Dawid
>>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 8:15 PM Robert Muir <rcmuir@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> +1, I think the main thing to watch out for is project panama. If we
>>>> get a 18.x/19.x release with non-incubating APIs, I think it makes
>>>> sense to create a new major Lucene version. Even if it isn't an
>>>> OpenJDK LTS release. It could really change a lot, especially
>>>> regarding hotspots in the code such as postings/dv compression. So it
>>>> would be great to allow a lot of folks to make a "take two" on these
>>>> algorithms with vectorization in mind. This is just my opinion.
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 2:10 PM Uwe Schindler <uwe@thetaphi.de> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > There are no good reasons to do Java 17 and it is way too early.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > Reagrding real optimizations, Lucene 17 is unfortunately not
>>>> containing Project Panama or Vector API, so it looks more like Java 18/19
>>>> is a good candidate as a new minimum at a later stage.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > I’d release Lucene 9 with Java 11 (which is LTS) and then decide
>>>> later if we update to some post-17 version to get the new vector and panama
>>>> APIs (vector search, SIMD and also MMapDirectory v2). If we do this, we
>>>> should simply release Lucene 10.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > Uwe
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > -----
>>>> >
>>>> > Uwe Schindler
>>>> >
>>>> > Achterdiek 19, D-28357 Bremen
>>>> >
>>>> > https://www.thetaphi.de
>>>> >
>>>> > eMail: uwe@thetaphi.de
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > From: Mike Drob <mdrob@apache.org>
>>>> > Sent: Monday, September 13, 2021 8:00 PM
>>>> > To: Solr/Lucene Dev <dev@lucene.apache.org>
>>>> > Subject: Java 11/17 Version Matrix
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > Hi Devs,
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > What are our thoughts on Java 11 and 17 version compatibility going
>>>> forward for Lucene 9? Will we support both? If so, would Java 11 support
>>>> likely continue for the entire 9.x release line?
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > Is there a JIRA tracking this?
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > Thanks,
>>>> >
>>>> > Mike
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>>>>
>>>> --
>> Uwe Schindler
>> Achterdiek 19, 28357 Bremen
>> https://www.thetaphi.de
>>
>
>
> --
> Adrien
>