[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2662?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12916873#action_12916873
]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-2662:
--------------------------------------------
bq. Still, the resulting indices had identical structure (ie we seem to flush
at exactly the same points), so I think bytes used is properly tracked.
Sorry, scratch that -- I was inadvertently flushing by doc count, not by RAM
usage. I'm re-running w/ flush-by-RAM to verify we flush at exactly the same
points as trunk.
> BytesHash
> ---------
>
> Key: LUCENE-2662
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2662
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Index
> Affects Versions: Realtime Branch, 4.0
> Reporter: Jason Rutherglen
> Assignee: Simon Willnauer
> Priority: Minor
> Fix For: Realtime Branch, 4.0
>
> Attachments: LUCENE-2662.patch, LUCENE-2662.patch, LUCENE-2662.patch,
> LUCENE-2662.patch, LUCENE-2662.patch
>
>
> This issue will have the BytesHash separated out from LUCENE-2186
--
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: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
