[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-3454?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13145222#comment-13145222
]
Shai Erera commented on LUCENE-3454:
------------------------------------
Well ... I don't like forceMerge for two reasons: (1) it may not actually force
anything and (2) it takes a parameter maxNumSegments which is just one of the
factors one would want to consider when doing optimize/merge. For instance,
when I do index optimization, I cap the process by a time constraint and let it
run until the time is exhausted. Given that today I can either call
maybeMerge() or optimize(), I call optimize(), and I like it that I don't need
to pass any 'fake' parameter, even though I'm aware that under the covers it
does optimize(1).
What about expungeDeletes? Why is it not called maybeExpungeDeletes? Because by
tweaking MP settings I can make it leave some deletes in segments. And why
isn't it called expungeDeletesThenMerge or expungeDeletesNoMerge (ala the now
gone addIndexesNoOptimize)? Don't get me wrong (before anyone opens an issue to
rename it too) - I like expungeDeletes! :)
I feel that we mask from the user what happens under the covers when he calls
any of the 3 methods (maybMerge, optimize, expungeDeletes). maybeMerge relate
to mergeFactor as a bounding criteria (don't merge if there are aren't X
segments at the same level), while optimize just uses it to determine how many
segments to merge at once, and expungeDeletes ignores it altogether.
So if MP determines so much what will happen when IndexWriter calls it, why
hide it from the method call? Instead of setting an MP once on IWC and hope
that the settings I've done will match any future call to one of these methods,
why not allow the user to pass the desired MP for the action he wants to
perform? That way we can focus MP implementations on specific tasks.
> rename optimize to a less cool-sounding name
> --------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-3454
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-3454
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Affects Versions: 3.4, 4.0
> Reporter: Robert Muir
> Assignee: Michael McCandless
> Attachments: LUCENE-3454.patch
>
>
> I think users see the name optimize and feel they must do this, because who
> wants a suboptimal system? but this probably just results in wasted time and
> resources.
> maybe rename to collapseSegments or something?
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ContactAdministrators!default.jspa
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
