Yes, there is also a safety check, but IMO it should be removed. See the patch on the issue, the test passes now.
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 9:31 PM, Vitaly Funstein <vfunst...@gmail.com> wrote: > Seems to me the bug occurs regardless of whether the passed in newer reader > is NRT or non-NRT. This is because the user operates at the level of > DirectoryReader, not SegmentReader and modifying the test code to do the > following reproduces the bug: > > writer.commit(); > DirectoryReader latest = DirectoryReader.open(writer, true); > > // This reader will be used for searching against commit point 1 > DirectoryReader searchReader = DirectoryReader.openIfChanged(latest, > ic1); // <=== Exception/Assertion thrown here > > > On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 6:26 PM, Robert Muir <rcm...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Thats because there are 3 constructors in segmentreader: >> >> 1. one used for opening new (checks hasDeletions, only reads liveDocs if >> so) >> 2. one used for non-NRT reopen <-- problem one for you >> 3. one used for NRT reopen (takes a LiveDocs as a param, so no bug) >> >> so personally i think you should be able to do this, we just have to >> add the hasDeletions check to #2 >> >> On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 7:46 PM, Vitaly Funstein <vfunst...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > One other observation - if instead of a reader opened at a later commit >> > point (T1), I pass in an NRT reader *without* doing the second commit on >> > the index prior, then there is no exception. This probably also hinges on >> > the assumption that no buffered docs have been flushed after T0, thus >> > creating new segment files, as well... unfortunately, our system can't >> make >> > either assumption. >> > >> > On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 4:30 PM, Vitaly Funstein <vfunst...@gmail.com> >> > wrote: >> > >> >> Normally, reopens only go forwards in time, so if you could ensure >> >>> that when you reopen one reader to another, the 2nd one is always >> >>> "newer", then I think you should never hit this issue >> >> >> >> >> >> Mike, I'm not sure if I fully understand your suggestion. In a nutshell, >> >> the use here case is as follows: I want to be able to search the index >> at a >> >> particular point in time, let's call it T0. To that end, I save the >> state >> >> at that time via a commit and take a snapshot of the index. After that, >> the >> >> index is free to move on, to another point in time, say T1 - and likely >> >> does. The optimization we have been discussing (and this is what the >> test >> >> code I posted does) basically asks the reader to go back to point T0, >> while >> >> reusing as much of the state of the index from T1, as long as it is >> >> unchanged between the two. >> >> >> >> That's what DirectoryReader.openIfChanged(DirectoryReader, IndexCommit) >> is >> >> supposed to do internally... or am I misinterpreting the >> >> intent/implementation of it? >> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-h...@lucene.apache.org >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-h...@lucene.apache.org
