thanks for clarifying this - I agree the wording is tricky here and we should use the term "apply" here! sorry for the confusion!
simon On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 7:39 PM, Michael McCandless <luc...@mikemccandless.com> wrote: > On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 11:24 AM, Shai Erera <ser...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> I think the doc is correct >> >> Wait, one of the docs is wrong. I guess according to what you write, it's >> FlushPolicy, as a new segment is not flushed per this setting? >> Or perhaps they should be clarified that the deletes are flushed == applied >> on existing segments? > > Ahh, right. OK I think we should fix FlushPolicy to say "deletes are > applied"? Let's try to leave the verb "flushed" to mean a new segment > is written to disk, I think? > >> I disabled reader pooling and I still don't see .del files. But I think >> that's explained due to there are no segments in the index yet. >> All documents are still in the RAM buffer, and according to what you write, >> I shouldn't see any segment cause of delTerms? > > Right! OK so that explains it. > > Mike McCandless > > http://blog.mikemccandless.com > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
