[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-5693?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14005837#comment-14005837 ]
Shai Erera commented on LUCENE-5693: ------------------------------------ bq. But I'll resolve this as WONTFIX ... looks like I'm just outvoted. I think you jumped to that conclusion too soon. The way I read it, there's one committer who +0.5, one who was OK w/ restricting this to postings only, and one who said that if it complicates the code, please don't do that -- but it doesn't. I don't think that's called "outvoted" :). But it's your call... > don't write deleted documents on flush > -------------------------------------- > > Key: LUCENE-5693 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-5693 > Project: Lucene - Core > Issue Type: Improvement > Reporter: Michael McCandless > Attachments: LUCENE-5693.patch > > > When we flush a new segment, sometimes some documents are "born deleted", > e.g. if the app did a IW.deleteDocuments that matched some not-yet-flushed > documents. > We already compute the liveDocs on flush, but then we continue (wastefully) > to send those known-deleted documents to all Codec parts. > I started to implement this on LUCENE-5675 but it was too controversial. > Also, I expect typically the number of deleted docs is 0, or small, so not > writing "born deleted" docs won't be much of a win for most apps. Still it > seems silly to write them, consuming IO/CPU in the process, only to consume > more IO/CPU later for merging to re-delete them. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.2#6252) --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org