Seems to me the bug occurs regardless of whether the passed in newer reader is NRT or non-NRT. This is because the user operates at the level of DirectoryReader, not SegmentReader and modifying the test code to do the following reproduces the bug:
writer.commit(); DirectoryReader latest = DirectoryReader.open(writer, true); // This reader will be used for searching against commit point 1 DirectoryReader searchReader = DirectoryReader.openIfChanged(latest, ic1); // <=== Exception/Assertion thrown here On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 6:26 PM, Robert Muir <rcm...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thats because there are 3 constructors in segmentreader: > > 1. one used for opening new (checks hasDeletions, only reads liveDocs if > so) > 2. one used for non-NRT reopen <-- problem one for you > 3. one used for NRT reopen (takes a LiveDocs as a param, so no bug) > > so personally i think you should be able to do this, we just have to > add the hasDeletions check to #2 > > On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 7:46 PM, Vitaly Funstein <vfunst...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > One other observation - if instead of a reader opened at a later commit > > point (T1), I pass in an NRT reader *without* doing the second commit on > > the index prior, then there is no exception. This probably also hinges on > > the assumption that no buffered docs have been flushed after T0, thus > > creating new segment files, as well... unfortunately, our system can't > make > > either assumption. > > > > On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 4:30 PM, Vitaly Funstein <vfunst...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > >> Normally, reopens only go forwards in time, so if you could ensure > >>> that when you reopen one reader to another, the 2nd one is always > >>> "newer", then I think you should never hit this issue > >> > >> > >> Mike, I'm not sure if I fully understand your suggestion. In a nutshell, > >> the use here case is as follows: I want to be able to search the index > at a > >> particular point in time, let's call it T0. To that end, I save the > state > >> at that time via a commit and take a snapshot of the index. After that, > the > >> index is free to move on, to another point in time, say T1 - and likely > >> does. The optimization we have been discussing (and this is what the > test > >> code I posted does) basically asks the reader to go back to point T0, > while > >> reusing as much of the state of the index from T1, as long as it is > >> unchanged between the two. > >> > >> That's what DirectoryReader.openIfChanged(DirectoryReader, IndexCommit) > is > >> supposed to do internally... or am I misinterpreting the > >> intent/implementation of it? > >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-h...@lucene.apache.org > >