Hm, what happens if one of the other index-modifying operations (e.g.
optimize, addDocument, addIndexer) is invoked at the same time by
another thread that uses the same IndexWriter instance?
// close IndexWriter
// open IndexReader
// delete via IndexReader
// close IndexReader
// open and return new IndexWriter
public IndexWriter delete(int docNum) throws IOException {
this.close();
IndexReader ireader = IndexReader.open(directory);
ireader.deleteIngoreLock(docNum);
ireader.close();
return new IndexWriter(reuse dir, analyzer, create flag);
}
One ugly API perhaps (returning IndexWriter like this), but it doesn't
mess with (no)locks. Oh, I didn't synchronize on anything. Maybe on
directory?
Otis
--- Daniel Naber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> the request to delete documents in IndexWriter instead of IndexReader
> comes
> up regularly. What if we implement a delete() method in IndexWriter
> like
> this:
>
> public synchronized void delete(int docNum) throws IOException {
> IndexReader ireader = IndexReader.open(directory);
> ireader.deleteIngoreLock(docNum);
> ireader.close();
> }
>
> deleteIngoreLock would be a new method just like delete, but that
> doesn't
> create a lock -- it uses the IndexWriter's lock which exists all the
> time.
> Would this work and would this be safe?
>
> I'm well aware that this can be slow, but it makes deleting documents
> so
> much easier for many people who don't have huge indices. We could
> document
> the fact that it's slow and use an array of document IDs to encourage
>
> people to delete more than one document at once, so the overhead of
> opening the reader becomes less.
>
> Regards
> Daniel
>
> --
> http://www.danielnaber.de
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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]
