[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2956?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13019768#comment-13019768
]
Simon Willnauer commented on LUCENE-2956:
-----------------------------------------
bq. Shall we start again on LUCENE-2312? I think we still need/want to use
sequence ids there. The RT DWPTs shouldn't have so many documents that using a
long[] for the sequence ids is too RAM consuming?
Jason I think nothing prevents you from start working on this again.... Yet, I
think we should freeze the branch now and only allow merging, bug fixes, tests
and documentation fixes until we land on trunk. Once we are there we can freely
push stuff in the branch again and make it work with seq. ids.
thoughts?
> Support updateDocument() with DWPTs
> -----------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-2956
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2956
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Index
> Affects Versions: Realtime Branch
> Reporter: Michael Busch
> Assignee: Simon Willnauer
> Priority: Minor
> Fix For: Realtime Branch
>
> Attachments: LUCENE-2956.patch, LUCENE-2956.patch
>
>
> With separate DocumentsWriterPerThreads (DWPT) it can currently happen that
> the delete part of an updateDocument() is flushed and committed separately
> from the corresponding new document.
> We need to make sure that updateDocument() is always an atomic operation from
> a IW.commit() and IW.getReader() perspective. See LUCENE-2324 for more
> details.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
