://www.thetaphi.de
> eMail: u...@thetaphi.de
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Michael McCandless [mailto:luc...@mikemccandless.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 6, 2016 12:30 PM
> > To: Duke DAI
> > Cc: Lucene Users
> > Subject: Re: Hardcoded chec
Bremen
http://www.thetaphi.de
eMail: u...@thetaphi.de
> -Original Message-
> From: Michael McCandless [mailto:luc...@mikemccandless.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 6, 2016 12:30 PM
> To: Duke DAI
> Cc: Lucene Users
> Subject: Re: Hardcoded checksum mechanism in BlockTreeTerm
I see. Bits can also be flipped by the network as they are travelling
to/from the DB. The end to end checksum Lucene does now would catch
that.
Anyway, that BlockTree index file that is being entirely checksummed
is a very small file. And, using the first pattern is not easy for it
because it n
Thanks for your quick response, Mike.
Database has its own raw page management over OS page management, and most
likely database has its own checksum on page level, that's why I want to
avoid checksum in Lucene Directory level.
Certainly checksum is good, I like the pattern(rewrite openChecksumIn
We have learned over time not to trust the underlying store to
correctly record the bytes we wrote to it.
This is why checksumming is very strongly built into Lucene at this
point. If you disable checksumming, when bits do flip, you get exotic
exceptions at search time that might look like Lucene
Hi all,
I'm customizing Lucene Directory, which extends o.a.l.store.Directory based
on database files. I do not need checksum again on IndexIndex and
IndexOutput.
But in BlockTreeTermsReader constructor, following code open a
hard-coded BufferedChecksumIndexInput to checksum on raw IndexInput. I
