lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From robert engels <reng...@ix.netcom.com>
Subject Re: Exposing IndexReader commit()
Date Mon, 11 Dec 2006 21:04:13 GMT
I think the high-level case is that if the index is shared, you want  
the other readers to be able to see the updated deletes if they are  
notified to reread the index (using something like reopen).

On Dec 11, 2006, at 2:59 PM, Yonik Seeley wrote:

> On 12/11/06, Otis Gospodnetic <otis_gospodnetic@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> I believe (another colleague did work around this) the use case is  
>> the desire to flush the deletes without having to close the reader  
>> and reopen it, which is expensive because of FieldCache population.
>
> Yes, but that doesn't answer *why* deletes must be flushed now as
> opposed to later.
> What's the higher level use-case behind needing to flush the deletes?
>
> -Yonik
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>


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


Mime
View raw message