ok I committed some improvements there and some other places. Thanks guys for clarifying this!
Shai On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 8:55 PM, Simon Willnauer <simon.willna...@gmail.com>wrote: > 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 > >
