Well there is a reason why they all do it that way. I'm gonna guess that the reason lucene does it this way is because it keeps a 'deleted docs bitset', which should act like a filter, which is not as slow as doing a full-delete/insert like in the other dbs that I mentioned.
Thanks Shawn. On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 9:57 PM, Shawn Heisey <apa...@elyograg.org> wrote: > On 12/16/2016 1:12 PM, Dorian Hoxha wrote: > > Shawn, I know how it works, I read the blog post. But I don't want it > > that > > way. So how to do it my way? Like a custom merge function on lucene or > > something else ? > > A considerable amount of custom coding. > > At a minimum, you'd have to write your own implementations of some > Lucene classes and probably some Solr classes. This sort of integration > might also require changes to the upstream Lucene/Solr source code. I > doubt there would be enough benefit (either performance or anything > else) to be worth the time and energy required. If Lucene-level support > would have produced a demonstrably better expiration feature, it would > have been implemented that way. > > If you're *already* an expert in Lucene/Solr code, then it might be a > fun intellectual exercise, but such a large-scale overhaul of an > existing feature that works well is not something I would try to do. > > Thanks, > Shawn > >
