Hi Mike,

Yes you are right, when we run the optimize(), it creates one large segment file and makes the searching faster. But the issue is our index keeps growing every minute as we download documents add to the index, so we cannot call optimize so often. The indexing seemed to be fine till we migrated to lucene 1.9.1.

I just compared the IndexWriter classes in 1.4.3 and 1.9.1 versions and found that there are some changes wrt to creating new segments. Any idea if that has impacted indexing? Has anyone else faced a similar issue with the new version of lucene?

-Harini

Mike Richmond wrote:

Hello Harini,

When you are finished indexing the documents are you running the
optimize() method on the IndexWriter before closing it?  This should
reduce the number of segments and make searching faster.  Just a
thought.


--Mike



On 5/22/06, Harini Raghavan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Hi All,
We have recently upgraded from lucene 1.4.3 to lucene 1.9.1 version.
After the upgrade, we are facing some issues:
1. Indexing seems to be behaving differently. There were more than 300
segment files(.cfs) in the index and the IndexSearcher is taking forever
to refresh the index. Have there been any changes in 1.9.1 wrt default
values for merging segment files/ indexing?
2. Our application downloads documents and indexes them every min as a
continuous process. So, we have a Quartz job that refreshes the Index
Searcher every 4 hours. Would this have any effect on the indexing
process/ add more no of segments?
Any help would be appreciated.
Thanks,
Harini

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to