[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1476?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12666034#action_12666034
]
Jason Rutherglen commented on LUCENE-1476:
------------------------------------------
{quote}
Should we deprecate isDeleted? And also deprecate document()
checking whether a document is deleted (ie switch to a new API that
returns document w/o checking deletions).
{quote}
Deprecating isDeleted might be good. Would we need the read only
readers? We can still offer get method access to the deleted docs if
it's a bit set by creating an abstract class DocIdBitSet that
BitVector, java.util.BitSet, and OpenBItSet implement. This can
happen by casting IR.getDeletedDocs to DocIdBItSet.
{quote}
Or perhaps move isDeleted to a new API that makes it clear
that there is a performance cost to random-access of deletions? (And
the first time it's called, it materializes a full bit vector).
{quote}
Seems best to keep deleted docs access to the DocIdSet and DocIdBitSet
and not have IR.isDeleted.
> 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
