lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Michael McCandless (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] Commented: (LUCENE-2086) When resolving deletes, IW should resolve in term sort order
Date Fri, 20 Nov 2009 18:04:39 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2086?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12780680#action_12780680
] 

Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-2086:
--------------------------------------------

Ahh, you're right, so long as your deletes are within the same index block (128 terms in length),
we avoid the binary search through the terms index and simply scan within the block.  Though,
you need relatively high density of deletions to see that.  Also, no matter what when you
cross an indexed term, the binary search will be done.  I'll genericize the language in the
CHANGES entry.

And actually this reminds to go make sure the flex branch is doing this optimization too...

> When resolving deletes, IW should resolve in term sort order
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: LUCENE-2086
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2086
>             Project: Lucene - Java
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: Index
>            Reporter: Michael McCandless
>            Assignee: Michael McCandless
>             Fix For: 3.1
>
>         Attachments: LUCENE-2086.patch
>
>
> See java-dev thread "IndexWriter.updateDocument performance improvement".

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
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