We have some code that uses lucene which has been working perfectly well for 
several months.

Recently, a QA team in our organization has set up a server with a much larger 
data set than we have ever tested with in the past:  the resulting lucene index 
is about 3G in size.

On this particular server, the same lucene code which has been reliable in the 
past is now exhibiting erratic behavior.  The first time you do a search, it 
returns the correct number of hits.  The second time you do a search, it may or 
may not return the correct set.  By the third time you do a search, it will 
return 0 hits even for a search that was returning hundreds of hits only a few 
seconds earlier.  All subsequent searches will return 0 hits until you stop and 
restart the java process.

A snippet of the relevant code follows:

                    // getReader() returns the singleton IndexReader object
                final IndexReader reader = getReader();

                    // ANALYZER is another singleton
                final QueryParser queryParser = new QueryParser("text", 
ANALYZER);
                queryParser.setDefaultOperator(spec.getDefaultOp());
                final Query query = 
queryParser.parse(spec.getSearchText()).rewrite(
                        reader);
                final IndexSearcher searcher = new IndexSearcher(reader);

                final Hits hits = searcher.search(query, new 
CachingWrapperFilter(
                        new QueryWrapperFilter(visibilityFilter)));
                total = hits.length();



I understand that Lucene should be able to handle very large datasets, so I'd 
be surprised if this were an actual Lucene bug.  I'm hoping it's just that I'm 
doing something "wrong" which has gone unnoticed so far for several months 
because we've never had an index this large.

We're using lucene verison 2.2.0.

Thanks!

Justin Grunau



      


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

Reply via email to