[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2086?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12781666#action_12781666
]
Mark Miller commented on LUCENE-2086:
-------------------------------------
No objection, but its an awkward precedent - you can see any bleeding edge user
always wanting the latest optimization in the next bug fix release (considering
how long you'll likely have to wait for x.n).
But as I'm one that was somewhat pro this for 2.9 (due to some being stuck on
1.4), I won't try and stop it here. I'm a big fan of case by case in general
anyway. I agree with your previous comment about trying to keep a bug fix
release as stable as possible - and this being a minor change, that would seemt
to go along with it - but code is a funny beast, even when dealing with the
simple ...
> When resolving deletes, IW should resolve in term sort order
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-2086
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2086
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Index
> Reporter: Michael McCandless
> Assignee: Michael McCandless
> Fix For: 3.1
>
> Attachments: LUCENE-2086.patch
>
>
> See java-dev thread "IndexWriter.updateDocument performance improvement".
--
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
