[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1476?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12665931#action_12665931
]
Jason Rutherglen commented on LUCENE-1476:
------------------------------------------
{quote}
M.M.: "At a higher level, I'd imagine we'd want to store the deleted doc IDs as
an
integer array rather than a BitVector if there aren't very many of them. But
I think that will mess with the random access required by
IndexReader.isDeleted()."
{quote}
Indeed, how should we solve isDeleted for the tombstones
implementation? Or do we simply assume it will be slow (requiring a
linear scan?) Or perhaps borrow from Solr's HashDocSet (a minimal
primitive int based hash) to implement?
> BitVector implement DocIdSet, IndexReader returns DocIdSet deleted docs
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-1476
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1476
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Index
> Affects Versions: 2.4
> Reporter: Jason Rutherglen
> Priority: Trivial
> Attachments: LUCENE-1476.patch, LUCENE-1476.patch, LUCENE-1476.patch,
> quasi_iterator_deletions.diff, quasi_iterator_deletions_r2.diff
>
> Original Estimate: 12h
> Remaining Estimate: 12h
>
> Update BitVector to implement DocIdSet. Expose deleted docs DocIdSet from
> IndexReader.
--
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: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
