[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-879?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12495257
]
Karl Wettin commented on LUCENE-879:
------------------------------------
Nicolas Lalevée [12/May/07 01:16 AM]
> Karl, in your application, you store nothing in Lucene isn't it ?
> Does it cost so much to just store an field id in Lucene ?
I have no clue how much CPU ticks or bits of RAM this might save me, I'll have
to bench that later on. This is just me fooling around with technology
solutions for fun, a proof of concept. There is no real project.
But it is not the cost that conserns me. It is having the data spread around
diffrent layers. I want to use BDB as object storage, not Lucene.
> Document number integrity merge policy
> --------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-879
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-879
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Store
> Affects Versions: 2.1
> Reporter: Karl Wettin
> Priority: Minor
> Attachments: LUNCENE-879.diff, LUNCENE-879.diff
>
>
> This patch allows for document numbers stays the same even after merge of
> segments with deletions.
> Consumer needs to do this:
> indexWriter.setSkipMergingDeletedDocuments(false);
> The effect will be that deleted documents are replaced by a new Document() in
> the merged segment, but not marked as deleted. This should probably be some
> policy thingy that allows for different solutions such as keeping the old
> document, et c.
> Also see http://www.nabble.com/optimization-behaviour-tf3723327.html#a10418880
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
