Thanks Mike. Shai
On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 12:49 PM, Michael McCandless < luc...@mikemccandless.com> wrote: > You could also use NoLockFactory. > > Disabling locks just means Lucene stops checking if another writer has > the index open (the write.lock file). > > It's extremely dangerous to do, unless you are absolutely certain your > application level locking properly implements the protection. It will > quickly lead to index corruption. > > I would expect no real performance change, unless you create writers > exceptionally often. > > A read-only index need not disable locks because IndexReader will > never attempt to create a lock. (Before 2.1 there was also a commit > lock, which IndexReader did create, but as of 2.1 IndexReader is > readOnly, unless you use it to do deletions or change norms). > > Mike > > On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 2:15 AM, Shai Erera<ser...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi > > > > If I can guarantee only one JVM will update an index (not at a time - > truly > > just one JVM), can I disable locks, or is it really necessary only for > > read-only devices? If I disable locks, will I see any performance > > improvements? > > > > Thanks > > Shai > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-h...@lucene.apache.org > >
