Hello Dipen,
I think what he meant is that if power is off the last transaction is
trashed, but your index is not.
Best.
On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 10:55 PM, Dipen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> hi michael,
> this is rather hard for me to understand, if a system loses power
> (electricity), how can
It's only if power is lost *after* the call to IndexWriter.commit()
has successfully returned, that the guarantee holds.
commit() does not return until all newly written and referenced files
in the index have been successfully fsync'd (and the OS does not
return from fsync until all bytes
hi michael,
this is rather hard for me to understand, if a system loses power
(electricity), how can it be ensured that fsync() call will happen at all,
this commit function relies on fsync() but what if OS doesnt have time or
power in this case to actually call fsync() and synchronize. I read ab
Hello,
Thanks a bunch Michael. Its been a long time I wanted to upgrade to
2.4. It seems major change has been done.
Best.
On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 9:49 PM, Michael McCandless
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Oh and I just committed a fix to IndexWriter's javadocs -- commit(long) is a
> private met
Oh and I just committed a fix to IndexWriter's javadocs --
commit(long) is a private method that should never have been in the
javadocs. Thanks for raising this!
Mike
Cam Bazz wrote:
Hello,
What is the difference between flush in <2.4 and commit?
Also I have been looking over docs, an
There is no difference, unless your computer/OS crashes or loses power
shortly after you had call the method.
In that case, there's a big difference: commit() guarantees your index
will be intact (assuming the storage system holding your index was not
damaged) but with flush(), which does
