Hi Anna, In normal usage, perReaderTermState will be null, and TermQuery will be very lightweight. It's in particular expert use cases (generally after queries have been rewritten against a specific IndexReader) that the perReaderTermState will be initialized. Are you cacheing rewritten queries somehow?
Alan Woodward www.flax.co.uk On 8 Jun 2015, at 10:49, Anna Maier wrote: > Hi, > > we ran into a memory problem with TermQuery: in our program, we build a > TermQuery object from the user input and pass it around, to be able to > different things, like execute the query again and so on. So, the TermQuery > object can potentially exist for some time. > Now it turns out, that a TermQuery keeps a reference to an IndexReader (via > the perReaderTermState field). > This keeps our program from throwing old readers away when new ones are > opened. This has quite an impact on the required memory, especially for big > indices. It is not feasible anymore now to keep a reference to a TermQuery > for longer. > > I'm wondering: is this a bug? After all, I would have expected the TermQuery > to be a lightweight object. Or is the TermQuery not intended to be passed > around in the program at all? > > Best, > Anna > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-h...@lucene.apache.org >
