: That said, it should never in fact cause index corruption, as far as I
: know. Lucene is "semi-transactional": at any & all moments you should
: be able to destroy the JVM and the index will be unharmed. I would
: really like to get to the bottom of why this is not the case here.
At any point
"vivek sar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sorry, I'm using Lucene 2.2. We are using Lucene to index our database
> (Oracle) into documents for full-text search feature. Here is the
> process of indexing,
>
> 1) Have two IndexWriters which run in two different threads and write
> to two different di
5 okt 2007 kl. 21.50 skrev vivek sar:
Once the writer.addIndexes is done I call writer.optimize()
No biggie, but IndexWriter.addIndexes() will automatically optimize,
so that is one line of code you can get rid of.
it may take hours to re-index
/Perhaps/ using IndexWriter.addIndexesNoO
: Once in a while we kill the running application using "kill -9". I
To quote a great man, who frequently quotes another great man: "Well
there's your problem!"
stop using "kill -9" ... i'll say it again because it's important, and
i'm even going to violate etiquite and use all caps because it
Thanks for the response Michael.
Sorry, I'm using Lucene 2.2. We are using Lucene to index our database
(Oracle) into documents for full-text search feature. Here is the
process of indexing,
1) Have two IndexWriters which run in two different threads and write
to two different directories (tempor
"vivek sar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We are using Lucene 2.3.
Do you mean Lucene 2.2? Your stack trace seems to line up with 2.2,
and 2.3 isn't quite released yet.
> The problem we are facing is quite a few times if our application is
> stopped (killed or crash) while Indexer is doing its j
