In my opinion, do no need to close the Directory, and keep all Directory and all IndexSearcher open.
return ivIndexSearcher.search(query, sortOrder); ( I think) is also return the hits getted frmo IndexSearcher, so it is iterate over the first N, no problem. In addition, how much index Directory do you have? is there a large number of data in one Document? 2008/9/6, N. Hira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > I'm not an expert, so please take this with a grain of salt, but if you > return the Hits object, you are inadvertently "holding on" to that > IndexSearcher, right? > > According to the FAQ > (http://wiki.apache.org/lucene-java/ImproveSearchingSpeed), > iterating over all Hits will result in additional queries. Further, I don't > think that you should call Directory.close() because it doesn't really do > anything if the Searcher is still out there ... > > If I was in your place, I would try to iterate over the first N (100?) > results and return the results back to the caller in some wrapper object, > leaving the Searcher and the Directory open, at least for a test. > > If you really need to go against the recommended best practice and close > the IndexSearcher, then I would strongly suggest some kind of scheduler that > closes, re-opens, and warms up IndexSearchers on some kind of timer. > > Good luck! > > -h > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Hira, N.R. > Cognocys, Inc. > (773) 251-7453 > > > On 05-Sep-2008, at 10:43 AM, Andy33 wrote: > > >> If I don't keep the IndexSearcher as a Singleton and instead open and >> close a >> new one each time, I have a large memory leak (probably due to the large >> queries I am doing). After watching the memory a while, I still believe I >> have a small memory leak even when the Directory, Analyzer, and >> IndexSearcher are Singletons. My free memory slowly becomes smaller after >> each query. Any ideas on what that may be due to? >> >> Here's my updated code... >> >> private synchronized Hits doQuery(String field, String queryStr, Sort >> sortOrder, String indexDirectory) throws Exception >> { >> Directory directory = null; >> Query query = null; >> QueryParser parser = null; >> >> try >> { >> directory = DirectorySingleton.getInstance(indexDirectory); >> ivIndexSearcher = (IndexSearcher) >> SearcherSingleton.getInstance(directory); >> >> //search the index >> parser = new QueryParser(field, >> AnalyzerSingleton.getInstance()); >> query = parser.parse(queryStr); >> >> return ivIndexSearcher.search(query, sortOrder); >> } >> finally >> { >> if(null != directory) >> { >> directory.close(); >> } >> >> directory = null; >> parser = null; >> query = null; >> } >> } >> >> >> -------------- >> Example Singleton >> >> public class SearcherSingleton >> { >> private static volatile HashMap<Directory, Searcher> cvSearches = new >> HashMap<Directory, Searcher>(); >> >> >> protected SearcherSingleton() >> { >> >> } >> >> >> public static Searcher getInstance(Directory directory) throws >> IOException >> { >> if(!cvSearches.containsKey(directory)) >> { >> synchronized(SearcherSingleton.class) >> { >> if(!cvSearches.containsKey(directory)) >> { >> cvSearches.put(directory, new >> IndexSearcher(directory)); >> } >> } >> } >> >> return cvSearches.get(directory); >> } >> >> } >> >> >> >> 장용석 wrote: >> >>> >>> In fact, I think that the important reasons are Directory class and >>> Analyzer >>> class. >>> If you don't want IndexSearcher class keep open for the entire life of a >>> web >>> application, you can do it. >>> I think It will not cause memory leak problem. >>> But, Directory and Analyzer classes can cause the problem if they new >>> created by method call every time. I think... >>> Only keep two classes Directory and Analyzer by singlton and do test. :) >>> >>> >>> >> > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
