Then I wouldn't need it and can still improve performance by using periodic commits, nice! thanks for explaining this,
Sanne On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 10:57 AM, Michael McCandless <luc...@mikemccandless.com> wrote: > On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 6:13 PM, Sanne Grinovero > <s.grinov...@sourcesense.com> wrote: >> Even if it's not strictly needed anymore, could it improve performance? > > I think there should be no real performance gains/losses one way or another. > > The current updateDocument call basically boils down to delete then add. > >> Right now I need to use commit() right after this dual operation to >> make sure no reader is ever going to miss it > > You don't need to use commit() right after -- you can use commit any > time later and both the del & add will be present. > >> but if it was atomic I >> could have avoided the commit and just trust that "at some time later" >> it will be auto-committed: exact moment would be out of my control, >> but even so the view on index wouldn't have a chance to miss some >> documents. > > Lucene no longer auto-commits -- your app completely controls when to > commit, so, I think the atomic-ness is unecessary? > > Mike > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org > > -- Sanne Grinovero http://in.relation.to/Bloggers/Sanne Sourcesense - making sense of Open Source: http://www.sourcesense.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
