Mailing-List: contact java-user-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (athena.apache.org: local policy)
Message-Id: <BFBF8AFB-66B5-4760-BC6B-43DCD160547C@mikemccandless.com>
From: Michael McCandless <lucene@mikemccandless.com>
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
In-Reply-To: <18666813.post@talk.nabble.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v926)
Subject: Re: Query in IndexWriter.deleteDocuments(Term term)
Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2008 13:06:10 -0400
References: <18662995.post@talk.nabble.com>
 <FD8B25C8-BFEF-4C58-B7DD-4D705063B322@mikemccandless.com>
 <18665652.post@talk.nabble.com>
 <C172F4F4-CFDF-4585-9BAF-6AA627B9DD3A@mikemccandless.com>
 <18666813.post@talk.nabble.com>


Yes.

Mike

Ajay Garg wrote:

>
> So commit() will be available from 2.4 onwards??
>
> Michael McCandless-2 wrote:
>>
>>
>> Ajay Garg wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks Mike. That was quite explanatory. A couple of doubts:
>>
>> You're welcome!
>>
>>> 1. The deletions apply to buffered as well as stored-in-RAM  
>>> documents.
>>> Right. So, if the index directory contains 1 document that matches a
>>> deleteDocument query, and 1 document in RAM that contains the same
>>> deleteDocument query, then, will the document-in-index-directory be
>>> deleted
>>> immediately, or when a flush is called. (It seems logical, that
>>> irrespective
>>> of the location of document, "actual" deletion occurs only when a
>>> flush is
>>> called .. just need to be doubly sure ...)
>>
>> Well ... the "actual" deletion (visible to an IndexReader that opens
>> the index) is only guaranteed to be performed if you call commit()
>> (trunk) or close() (2.3, trunk) on the IW.
>>
>> First, deleted docIDs, terms and queries are simply buffered in RAM.
>> Then at some point (no guarantee on when) they are flushed into per-
>> segment .del files in the directory, but, these del files are
>> "unreferenced" (by a segments_N file) until commit() or close() is
>> called.
>>
>>> 2. Yes I am planning to rewrite a project using Lucene 2.3.2. So, is
>>> the
>>> next version heading straight to 3.0 ??? (Sorry, if this question
>>> seems to
>>> be a little out of context of the current thread)
>>
>> The current plan is to have a 2.4 release next, then a 2.9 release  
>> and
>> finally 3.0.  It's spelled out a bit here:
>>
>>     http://wiki.apache.org/lucene-java/Java_1.5_Migration
>>
>> But there are no dates attached to those bullets!
>>
>> Mike
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-help@lucene.apache.org
>>
>>
>>
>
> -- 
> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Query-in-IndexWriter.deleteDocuments%28Term-term%29-tp18662995p18666813.html
> Sent from the Lucene - Java Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-help@lucene.apache.org
>


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