[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-3577?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13150552#comment-13150552
]
Yonik Seeley commented on LUCENE-3577:
--------------------------------------
bq. In practice expungeDeletes will usually be just like forceMerge(1) so for
apps that must have no deletes (eg maybe they need docFreq to be 100%
accurate), they can call forceMerge(1) instead.
If there are just a few deletes in a few small segments, using optimize instead
of expungeDeletes is much more expensive?
Although, it doesn't really seem like an important use case (ensuring there are
no deletes).
> rename expungeDeletes
> ---------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-3577
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-3577
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: Task
> Reporter: Robert Muir
>
> Similar to optimize(), expungeDeletes() has a misleading name.
> We already had problems with this on the user list because TieredMergePolicy
> didn't 'expunge' all their deletes.
> Also I think expunge is the wrong word, because expunge makes it seem
> like you just wrangle up the deletes and kick them out of the party and
> that it should be fast.
--
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: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
