I tried converting index using IndexWriter as follows:
Lucene.Net.Index.IndexWriter writer = new IndexWriter(TestIndexPath+"_2.9", new
Lucene.Net.Analysis.KeywordAnalyzer());
writer.SetMaxBufferedDocs(2);
writer.SetMaxMergeDocs(1000000);
writer.SetMergeFactor(2);
writer.AddIndexesNoOptimize(new Lucene.Net.Store.Directory[] { new
Lucene.Net.Store.SimpleFSDirectory(new DirectoryInfo(TestIndexPath)) });
writer.Commit();
That seems to work (I get what looks like a valid index directory at least).
But still when I run some tests using IndexSearcher I get the same problem (I
get documents in Collect() which are larger than IndexReader.MaxDoc()). Any
idea what the problem could be?
BTW, this is a problem because I lookup some fields (date ranges, etc.) in some
custom collectors which filter out documents, and it assumes I dont get any
documents larger than maxDoc.
Thanks,
Bob
On Jun 9, 2011, at 12:37 PM, Digy wrote:
> One more point, some write operations using Lucene.Net 2.9.2 (add, delete,
> optimize etc.) upgrades automatically your index to 2.9.2.
> But if your index is somehow corrupted(eg, due to some bug in 1.9) this may
> result in data loss.
>
> DIGY
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Stewart [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2011 7:06 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: [Lucene.Net] index version compatibility (1.9 to 2.9.2)?
>
> I have a Lucene index created with Lucene.Net 1.9. I have a multi-segment
> index (non-optimized). When I run Lucene.Net 2.9.2 on top of that index, I
> get IndexOutOfRange exceptions in my collectors. It is giving me document
> IDs that are larger than maxDoc.
>
> My index contains 377831 documents, and IndexReader.MaxDoc() is returning
> 377831, but I get documents from Collect() with large values (for instance
> 379018). Is an index built with Lucene.Net 1.9 compatible with 2.9.2? If
> not, is there some way I can convert it (in production we have many indexes
> containing about 200 million docs so I'd rather convert existing indexes
> than rebuilt them).
>
> Thanks
> Bob=
>
