lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Simon Willnauer <simon.willna...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: FlushPolicy and maxBufDelTerm
Date Thu, 01 Aug 2013 17:55:13 GMT
thanks for clarifying this  - I agree the wording is tricky here and
we should use the term "apply" here! sorry for the confusion!

simon

On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 7:39 PM, Michael McCandless
<lucene@mikemccandless.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 11:24 AM, Shai Erera <serera@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I think the doc is correct
>>
>> Wait, one of the docs is wrong. I guess according to what you write, it's
>> FlushPolicy, as a new segment is not flushed per this setting?
>> Or perhaps they should be clarified that the deletes are flushed == applied
>> on existing segments?
>
> Ahh, right.  OK I think we should fix FlushPolicy to say "deletes are
> applied"?  Let's try to leave the verb "flushed" to mean a new segment
> is written to disk, I think?
>
>> I disabled reader pooling and I still don't see .del files. But I think
>> that's explained due to there are no segments in the index yet.
>> All documents are still in the RAM buffer, and according to what you write,
>> I shouldn't see any segment cause of delTerms?
>
> Right!  OK so that explains it.
>
> Mike McCandless
>
> http://blog.mikemccandless.com
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>

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


Mime
View raw message