> But, IW doesn't let you "hold on to" checkpoints... only to commits. > > Ie SnapshotDP will only "see" actual commit/close calls, not > intermediate checkpoints like a random segment merge completing, a > flush happening, etc. > > Or... maybe you would in fact call commit frequently from the main > threads (but with fsync disabled), and then your DP holds onto these > "fake commits", periodically picking one of them to do the "real" > fsync ing? Yeah, that's exactly what I tried to describe in my initial post :)
>>>> I'm just playing around with stupid idea. I'd like to have NRT >>>> look-alike without binding readers and writers. :) >>> I see... well binding durability & visibility will always be costly. >>> This is why Lucene decouples them (by making NRT readers available). >> My experiments do the same, essentially. >> But after I understood that to perform deletions IW has to load term indexes >> anyway, I'm almost ready to give up and go for intertwined IW/IR mess :) > Hey if you really think it's a mess, post a patch that cleans it up :) Uh oh. Let me finish current one, first. Second - I don't know yet how this should look like. Something along the lines of deletions/norms writers being extracted from segment reader and reader pool being made external to IW?? -- Kirill Zakharenko/Кирилл Захаренко (ear...@gmail.com) Home / Mobile: +7 (495) 683-567-4 / +7 (903) 5-888-423 ICQ: 104465785 --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
