[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2904?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13029403#comment-13029403
]
Earwin Burrfoot commented on LUCENE-2904:
-----------------------------------------
I think we should simply change the API for MergePolicy.
Instead of SegmentInfos it should accept a Set<SegmentInfo> with SIs eligible
for merging (eg, completely written & not elected for another merge).
IW.getMergingSegments() is a damn cheat, and "Expert" notice is not an excuse!
:)
Why should each and every MP do the set substraction when IW can do it for them
once and for all?
> non-contiguous LogMergePolicy should be careful to not select merges already
> running
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-2904
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2904
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: Bug
> Reporter: Michael McCandless
> Assignee: Michael McCandless
> Priority: Minor
> Fix For: 3.2, 4.0
>
> Attachments: LUCENE-2904.patch
>
>
> Now that LogMP can do non-contiguous merges, the fact that it disregards
> which segments are already being merged is more problematic since it could
> result in it returning conflicting merges and thus failing to run multiple
> merges concurrently.
--
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
