Jason Polites wrote:
Are you also running searchers against this index? Are they re-init'ing
frequently or being opened and then held open?
No searches running in my initial test, although I can't be certain what is
happening under the Compass hood.
OK.
This looks similar to http://issue
Hi All,
While searching the net for 2.0 API examples, I noticed there aren't that
many. The only example I have seen is the stock example. Are there any
tutorials or example codes out there?
Tia
Hi,
I'm using a parallelreader to hold on two indicies. There have to be updated
everyday.
When I'm performing a deletion e.g. parallelreader.delete(New
Term("ID","100)), the documents are still there.
When i do the some with normal indexreader e.g. indexreader.delete(New
Term("ID","100)) it wo
On 8/26/06, Jason Polites <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Synchronization at this low level would ensure that outer application layers
would be guaranteed of IO isolation.
That still wouldn't solve two JVMs (or even two webapps) trying to
grab the same lock and getting an exception, correct?
It see
I would have thought that simultaneous cross-JVM access to an index was
outside of scope of the core Lucene API (although it would be great), but
maybe the file system basis allows for this (?).
I like the idea of catching IOExceptions and returning false. Conceptually,
failing to obtain a lock
The first place I'd look is whether you're closing your *searcher* between
times in both cases.
If that leads nowhere, I'd make sure I had a copy of Luke so I could
reassure myself that the document was actually in both cases.
After that, I'd think about posting a fragment of both your deletion
"Jason Polites" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 27/08/2006 09:36:07:
> I would have thought that simultaneous cross-JVM access to an index was
> outside of scope of the core Lucene API (although it would be great), but
> maybe the file system basis allows for this (?).
Lucene does protect you from m
On 8/27/06, Doron Cohen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I plan to submit an update to that patch later today accommodating your
comments (and others); It will most probably retry for IOExceptions (not
analyzing the exception text); also, it would return false if the *retry*
for obtain() failed with ex
Hi Erik,
i made some several test as follows:
Create new indicies with only on document with one Value ("ID"=100).
Open it with parallelreader.
Delete Document with parallelreader.delete(new Term("ID","100"))
Close Reader with parallelreader.close.
After this i open the index with luke and coul
While searching the net for 2.0 API examples, I noticed there aren't that
many. The only example I have seen is the stock example. Are there any
tutorials or example codes out there?
You can start with the getting started page which walks through the demo
code:
http://lucene.apache.org/ja
Also let me also emphasize the test cases that are built into the
Lucene codebase itself. These are premium *always working* examples
of how to use specific parts of Lucene in an isolated fashion.
Check out Lucene's trunk (or 2.0 branch) via Subversion and enjoy.
Erik
p.s. I had
Erik Hatcher wrote:
Also let me also emphasize the test cases that are built into the Lucene
codebase itself. These are premium *always working* examples of how to
use specific parts of Lucene in an isolated fashion. Check out
Lucene's trunk (or 2.0 branch) via Subversion and enjoy.
Here h
Yonik Seeley wrote:
On 8/27/06, Doron Cohen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I plan to submit an update to that patch later today accommodating your
comments (and others); It will most probably retry for IOExceptions (not
analyzing the exception text); also, it would return false if the *retry*
for ob
Doron Cohen wrote:
"Jason Polites" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 27/08/2006 09:36:07:
I would have thought that simultaneous cross-JVM access to an index was
outside of scope of the core Lucene API (although it would be great), but
maybe the file system basis allows for this (?).
Lucene does p
Is there a way to update a document in the Index without causing any change
to the order in which it comes up in searches?
I have a bunch of search results being returned as a result of a query.
This is done in order to allow users to "request boost" - they have a
drop-down box with options slig
Thanks for the replies.
I should of waited a little bit longer for the Genie book (LIA) :-)
On 8/27/06, Michael McCandless <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Erik Hatcher wrote:
> Also let me also emphasize the test cases that are built into the Lucene
> codebase itself. These are premium *always w
Wow. That's awesome.
I had just assumed (foolishly) that cross-JVM access would be problematic.
Maybe I should read the manual ;)
Cross machine access could be solved with some RMI magic.. but
performance/scalability may be an issue.
On 8/28/06, Michael McCandless <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Not sure what the desired end result is here, but you shouldn't need to
update the document jut to give it a boost factor. This can be done in the
query string used to search the index.
As for updating affecting search order, I don't think you can assume any
guarantees in this regard. You're pr
: I had just assumed (foolishly) that cross-JVM access would be problematic.
nope .. the whole point of the lockfiles is to deal with multiple JVMs ...
otherwise Lucene locking could be accomplished entirely with
synchronization.
-Hoss
19 matches
Mail list logo
