lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Michael McCandless <luc...@mikemccandless.com>
Subject Re: FlushPolicy and maxBufDelTerm
Date Thu, 01 Aug 2013 17:39:24 GMT
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


Mime
View raw message