Even if you could tell a reader is closed, you'd wind up with
unmaintainable code. I envision you have a bunch of places
where you'd do something like
if (reader.isClosed()) {
reader = create a new reader.
}
But practically, you'd be opening a new reader someplace,
closing it someplace else, opening it in another place......
This just leads to maintenance nightmares. For instance, how
could you determine what the state of a particular reader was
when trying to figure out why your searches didn't work if you don't
have a clue where/when it was opened?
Perhaps the easiest thing to do if you can't restructure your code
as Michael suggested is just employ a singleton pattern to give you
complete control over when/where a reader is opened.....
Best
Erick
On Dec 12, 2007 5:36 AM, Michael McCandless <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> Ruslan Sivak wrote:
>
> > Michael McCandless wrote:
> >>
> >> Ruslan Sivak wrote:
> >>
> >>> I have an index of about 10mb. Since it's so small, I would like
> >>> to keep it loaded in memory, and reload it about every minute or
> >>> so, assuming that it has changed on disk. I have the following
> >>> code, which works, except it doesn't reload the changes.
> >>> protected String indexName;
> >>> protected IndexReader reader;
> >>> private long lastCheck=0;
> >>> ...
> >>> protected IndexReader getReader() throws CorruptIndexException,
> >>> IOException
> >>> {
> >>> if (reader==null || System.currentTimeMillis() > lastCheck
> >>> +60000)
> >>> {
> >>> lastCheck=System.currentTimeMillis();
> >>> if (reader==null || !reader.isCurrent())
> >>> {
> >>> if (reader!=null)
> >>> reader.close();
> >>> Directory dir = new RAMDirectory
> >>> (indexName);
> >>> reader = IndexReader.open(dir);
> >>> searcher = new IndexSearcher(reader);
> >>> }
> >>> }
> >>> return reader;
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Apparently reader.isCurrent() won't tell you if the underlying
> >>> FSDirectory has changed.
> >>
> >> That's right: your reader is only searching the RAMDirectory; it
> >> has no idea that your RAMDirectory was copied from an FSDirectory
> >> that has now changed. (That ctor for RAMDirectory makes a full
> >> copy of what's currently in the FSDirectory and thereafter
> >> maintains no link to that FSDirectory).
> >>
> >>> I also had the following code before:
> >>> instead of
> >>> if (reader==null || !reader.isCurrent())
> >>> I had
> >>> if (reader==null || reader.getVersion() !=
> >>> IndexReader.getCurrentVersion(indexName))
> >>
> >> That 2nd line seems like it should have worked. What version of
> >> Lucene are you using? Are you really sure it's not showing the
> >> changes? Can you print the two versions? Every commit to the
> >> index (by IndexWriter) should increment that version number.
> >>
> > The 2nd line was working fine, however I was getting errors in
> > other places saying that the indexReader is closed.
>
> Can you restructure your code, such that you open a new reader
> without first closing the old one, and then only once the open is
> complete, you swap the new reader in as "reader", wait for threads to
> finish using the old reader, then call close on the old one?
>
> >>> I was getting a bunch of this indexreader is closed errors, and
> >>> I'm not sure why there's no method like reader.isClosed().
> >>
> >> That's spooky: can you explain why you're accidentally using a
> >> closed reader? Your code above seems to replace reader after
> >> closing it. Are there other threads that are using the reader
> >> while you are doing this re-opening?
> >>
> > There could be other threads using this, and there are other places
> > in the code that open and close readers. My main problem I guess
> > is that I can't tell when a reader is closed. Is there some method
> > I can use? I basically want to do something like this.
> > if (reader==null || reader.isClosed || reader.getVersion() !=
> > IndexReader.getCurrentVersion(indexName))
>
> There is currently no way to ask a reader if it's closed. I suppose
> you could do something like:
>
> try {
> version = reader.getVersion();
> isClosed = false;
> } catch (AlreadyClosedException e) {
> isClosed = true;
> }
>
> However this is somewhat bad form. It's better to restructure your
> code such that it's not possible to accidentally use a reader you had
> closed.
>
> > Is reader threadsafe? Should each invocation open it's own reader?
>
> Reader is definitely thread safe, so you should share 1 reader across
> all threads. You just need to take care in your app to not close a
> reader if other threads are still using it or will continue using it.
>
> Mike
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
