Mailing-List: contact java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
Message-ID: <334421023.1258743039682.JavaMail.jira@brutus>
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2009 18:50:39 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Michael McCandless (JIRA)" <jira@apache.org>
To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: [jira] Commented: (LUCENE-2086) When resolving deletes, IW should
 resolve in term sort order
In-Reply-To: <220303101.1258728339970.JavaMail.jira@brutus>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2086?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12780706#action_12780706 ] 

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


bq. i've seen the deletes dominating commit time quite often, so obviously it would be very useful to be able to absorb this optimization sooner than later (whats the timeframe for 3.1?)

I'm not sure how much gain you can expect from this patch (there are
many factors involved) -- maybe try it & report back?

Not sure what the timeframe is for 3.1 at this point...

bq. otherwise i'll have to override the classes involved and pull in this patch (never like this approach myself)

I understand... you could run with trunk (and report back!) ;)

bq. It doesn't break backwards compatibility and it's well under the hood so it seems like something that go into a sub decimal release?

I know it's tempting to do so, but I think it's important to hold the
line on only back-porting important bug fixes... as innocent as this
change looks, it's always possible I screwed something up, and so
why risk a point release with that?  Point releases are supposed to
be as stable as we can possibly make them.

This way the change has plenty of time to "bake" on trunk and if
something is amiss we'll have much more time/attention to catch it.

I'd rather see us release a 3.1 sooner rather than later, instead.


> 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