That's right. In 3x though you have to call addIndexes followed by
maybeMerge if you want to achieve the same effect of
addindexesNoOptimize.
Shai
On Friday, November 12, 2010, Marc Sturlese wrote:
>
> Thanks, so clarifying. As far as I've understood, if I have to end up
> optimizing the index j
Are you using compound file format (the default)?
If you turn that off (just for this test) do you still see that
IndexWriter is holding open the files (35 in your example) after you
close all readers?
I've found a case, only with compound file, where IndexWriter holds
open a SegmentReader on the
Thanks, so clarifying. As far as I've understood, if I have to end up
optimizing the index just after merging it, no matter if I use the lucene
3.X addIndexes or addIndexesNoOptimize as the sum of time of doing both
things will be the same in one case or other. Am I right?
--
View this message i
Ok, so a couple of clarifications:
addIndexes(Directory...) *does not* trigger any merges. It simply registers
the incoming directories in the target index, and returns. You can later
call maybeMerge() or optimize() as you see fit.
Compound files are irrelevant to addIndexes - it just adds the in
Thanks a lot Shai, couple of questions:
>> In Lucene 3x there is a new addIndexes which accepts Directory… that
>> simply registers the new indexes in the index, without running merges.
>> That makes addIndexes very fast.
With the lucene 3.X addIndexes which accepts Directory, if after the mer
In Lucene 3x there is a new addIndexes which accepts Directory… that
simply registers the new indexes in the index, without running merges.
That makes addIndexes very fast.
Also, you can consider calling close(false) to not wait for merges.
That can speed things up as well.
But note that not run
I am doing some test about merge indexing and have a performance doubt
I am doing merge in a simple way, something like:
FSDirectory indexes[] = new FSDirectory[indexList.size()];
for (int i = 0; i < indexList.size(); i++) {
indexes[i] = FSDirectory.open(new File(indexList
> Does anyone know what technology they are using: http://www.indextank.com/
> Is it Lucene under the hood?
> Thanks, and apologies for cross-posting.
> -Glen
I happen to be one of Indextank's developers, so I think I'm qualified to
answer your question! ;)
We do use a small portion of Lucene, nam
Looked at 2.2 api and those methods should be there. So the
NoSuchMethodException makes no sense.
Are you absolutely sure that your integration between PHP & Java is setup
properly and you really are using 2.2?
Could there be multiple versions of lucene jars in your classpath? such that
older ones
Hello,
I use the searcherManager for LiveIndexing. With watch -n 60 "lsof |
grep indexname | grep deleted | wc -l" I see the number of deleted file
handles. The number of handles fluctuates during the indexing. 0 -> 35
-> 53 -> 135 -> 40 -> 85 ... Uwe said that this is expected because
seg
10 matches
Mail list logo
