[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1708?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12726593#action_12726593
]
Mark Miller commented on LUCENE-1708:
-------------------------------------
bq. There is a paragraph in CHANGES under "Changes to Runtime Behavior" that
explains this.
Right, I saw that - I just wondered about the discussion to do it.
bq. I think it was on the email thread and not on this issue, that people
preferred the runtime change vs. the deprecation and a new method name for
document(), under the assumption that it's very unlikely that someone relies on
IndexReader.document() checking for isDeleted (i.e., it passes a document which
may or may not be deleted).
Thanks - thats the discussion I wasn't able to spot.
> Improve the use of isDeleted in the indexing code
> -------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-1708
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1708
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Index
> Reporter: Shai Erera
> Assignee: Michael McCandless
> Fix For: 2.9
>
> Attachments: LUCENE-1708.patch, LUCENE-1708.patch
>
>
> A spin off from here:
> http://www.nabble.com/Some-thoughts-around-the-use-of-reader.isDeleted-and-hasDeletions-td23931216.html.
> Two changes:
> # Optimize SegmentMerger work when a reader has no deletions.
> # IndexReader.document() will no longer check if the document is deleted.
> Will post a patch shortly
--
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
