lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Shai Erera <ser...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: FlushPolicy and maxBufDelTerm
Date Thu, 01 Aug 2013 19:25:09 GMT
ok I committed some improvements there and some other places.
Thanks guys for clarifying this!

Shai


On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 8:55 PM, Simon Willnauer
<simon.willnauer@gmail.com>wrote:

> 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