stefanvodita commented on code in PR #11815:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/11815#discussion_r980472199
##########
lucene/misc/src/java/org/apache/lucene/misc/index/IndexRearranger.java:
##########
@@ -175,5 +202,7 @@ public CacheHelper getReaderCacheHelper() {
/** Select document within a CodecReader */
public interface DocumentSelector {
BitSet getFilteredLiveDocs(CodecReader reader) throws IOException;
+
+ boolean isDeleted(LeafReader reader, int idx) throws IOException;
Review Comment:
1. Agreed, that can be confusing, but better naming and documenting can
alleviate the problem. Alternatively, we could define a separate interface to
act on the rearranged index and mark deletes. What do you think?
2. That’s true, whoever implements a document selector would have to
identify deletes. I think you’re right - there’s no good reason to handle
deletions as we’re rearranging. It can be a separate step, after the rearranged
index has been produced.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
us...@infra.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: issues-h...@lucene.apache.org
