I agree those are benefits when you batch process the indexes once or once in a while.
The beauty of AOP is that I can intercept writes and do change the index on the spot. At that point I'd need to let the search know or drop it. If I do that that will face issues on the search side since this should be a thread safe environment . It's possible that while some one tries to search the IndexSearcher will be dropper or not yet fully initialized... I tried to create a seacher everytime but that lead me to the Too-Many-Files-Open exception. So no matter what I do I face a show stopper. -------------- Original message ---------------------- From: Doron Cohen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Indeed, having to re-open a searcher/reader in order for searches > to reflect index modification, can sometimes not best fit with the > logic of a certain application. > > But see the features made possible with this design: > (+) searches do not feel index modifications until desired. > (++) no need to synchronize/interfere between searchers and index updates. > (+++) stable non-corruptable index without duplicating index data. > > Doron > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 05/03/2007 11:02:34: > > That part is self understood. However as I describe the problem > > initially - and the use case is a very practical way of dealing with > > documents in real live - they change, we edit them, I don't want to > > run a batch re-indexing thing every night... I just wanted done on > > the spot. One instance IndexerSeacher it's the way to go I today > > agree but because it's reader doesn't detect the changes in the > > files because is not being used to do them it's pretty anoying don't > > you all thing ? > > > > -------------- Original message ---------------------- > > From: "Erick Erickson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > <1>. Every time you close/open a reader, you pay a significant penalty > > > to warm up caches, etc. You may have to do some tricky dancing > > > to coordinate among the sessions to be able to close/reopen > > > the reader to allow updates to show up though. > > > > > > Erick > > > > > > > > > On 3/5/07, Mohammad Norouzi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi Erick > > > > I am completely confused about this IndexReader. > > > > in my case, I have to keep the reader opened because of pagination of > the > > > > result so I have to had a reader per session. the thing that baffled > me is > > > > can only one reader service all the session at the same time? > > > > > > > > I mean > > > > 1- having one reader for all sessions and having a Hits for each > session. > > > > 2- one reader per session. > > > > which one is right? > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
