[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-879?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12986848#action_12986848
]
Trejkaz commented on LUCENE-879:
--------------------------------
The workaround of using an ID turns out to be very slow. The worst part is if
you need to build a filter - if your database query spits out some other ID
scheme then you need to map them to lucene IDs to build the filter, which
effectively comes down to one search per document matching the filter.
Was there another workaround proposed which *was* actually reasonable? Maybe
I'm just not seeing it?
> 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]
