I honestly don't understand what DWPT pool has to do with IndexWriterConfig
instances not being reusable for new IndexWriter instances. If you have the
need to open a new IndexWriter with the same configuration as the one you
used before, why not save the original config as the "template", then
simply do this for every IndexWriter instance you're creating:
private final IndexWriterConfig masterCfg = new
IndexWriterConfig(Version.LUCENE_47, null);
// set whatever you need on this instance
.....
IndexWriter writer = new IndexWriter(directory, masterCfg.clone());
Wouldn't this just work? If not, could you paste the stack trace of the
exception you're getting?
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 9:01 PM, Sheng <sheng...@gmail.com> wrote:
> From src code of DocumentsWriterPerThreadPool, the variable
> numThreadStatesActive seems to be always increasing, which explains why
> asserting on numThreadStatesActive == 0 before cloning this object
> fails. So what should be the most appropriate way of re-opening an
> indexwriter if what you have are the index directory plus the
> indexWriterConfig that the closed indexWriter has been using?
>
> BTW - I am reasonably sure calling indexWriterConfig.clone() in the middle
> of indexing documents used to work for my code(same Lucene 4.7). It is
> since recently I had to do faceted indexing as well that this problem
> started to emerge. Is it related?
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 11:31 PM, Vitaly Funstein <vfunst...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I only have the source to 4.6.1, but if you look at the constructor of
> > IndexWriter there, it looks like this:
> >
> > public IndexWriter(Directory d, IndexWriterConfig conf) throws
> > IOException {
> > conf.setIndexWriter(this); // prevent reuse by other instances
> >
> > The setter throws an exception if the configuration object has already
> been
> > used with another instance of IndexWriter. Therefore, it should be cloned
> > before being used in the constructor of IndexWriter.
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 7:12 PM, Sheng <sheng...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > So the indexWriterConfig.clone() failed at this step:
> > > clone.indexerThreadPool = indexerThreadPool
> > > <
> > >
> >
> http://grepcode.com/file/repo1.maven.org/maven2/org.apache.lucene/lucene-core/4.7.0/org/apache/lucene/index/LiveIndexWriterConfig.java#LiveIndexWriterConfig.0indexerThreadPool
> > > >
> > > .clone
> > > <
> > >
> >
> http://grepcode.com/file/repo1.maven.org/maven2/org.apache.lucene/lucene-core/4.7.0/org/apache/lucene/index/DocumentsWriterPerThreadPool.java#DocumentsWriterPerThreadPool.clone%28%29
> > > >
> > > ();
> > >
> > > which then failed at this step in the "indexerThreadPool"
> > >
> > >
> > > if (numThreadStatesActive
> > > <
> > >
> >
> http://grepcode.com/file/repo1.maven.org/maven2/org.apache.lucene/lucene-core/4.7.0/org/apache/lucene/index/DocumentsWriterPerThreadPool.java#DocumentsWriterPerThreadPool.0numThreadStatesActive
> > > >
> > > != 0) {
> > >
> > > throw new IllegalStateException
> > > <
> > >
> >
> http://grepcode.com/file/repository.grepcode.com/java/root/jdk/openjdk/6-b27/java/lang/IllegalStateException.java#IllegalStateException
> > > >("clone
> > > this object before it is used!");
> > >
> > > }
> > >
> > >
> > > There is a comment right above this:
> > > // We should only be cloned before being used:
> > >
> > > Does this mean whenever the indexWriter gets called for
> > > commit/prepareCommit, etc., the corresponding indexWriterConfig object
> > > cannot be called with .clone() at all?
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 9:52 PM, Vitaly Funstein <vfunst...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Looks like you have to clone it prior to using with any IndexWriter
> > > > instances.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 2:49 PM, Sheng <sheng...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I tried to create a clone of indexwriteconfig with
> > > > > "indexWriterConfig.clone()" for re-creating a new indexwriter, but
> I
> > > > then I
> > > > > got this very annoying illegalstateexception: "clone this object
> > before
> > > > it
> > > > > is used". Why does this exception happen, and how can I get around
> > it?
> > > > > Thanks!
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
