Kastern, thanks for the reply. > IndexReader is thread-save so you don't need a cache.
If it wasn't thread-safe I may need a cache? I think the cache cannot be used on a non-thread-safe environment since it exposes same instances to different threads. > Opening and closing an IndexReader takes some time. But I don't > now if this is measurable. > So if you know that you don't want to change a index, let the IndexReader > open. > (somebody disagree with me?) My indices are readonly. Once created never change. If the memory footprint for an open IndexReader is very low, I can keep all the gradually opened index readers open. > If you want to use your main memory you can switch from FSDirectory to > RamDirectory. > This will boost your performance for sure. Thanks for the suggestion. I will use it for the most commonly used index. Mohsen. -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Doesn-it-make-sense-cache-IndexReader--tp18502361p18511667.html Sent from the Lucene - Java Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
