Re: Atomicity in Lucene operations
As soon as I've cleaned up the code, I'll publish it, it needs a little more documentation as well. Nader Roy Shan wrote: Maybe you can contribute it to sandbox? On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 08:31:30 -0700 (PDT), Yonik Seeley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Nader, I would greatly appreciate it if you could CC me on the docs or the code. Thanks! Yonik --- Nader Henein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's pretty integrated into our system at this point, I'm working on Packaging it and cleaning up my documentation and then I'll make it available, I can give you the documents and if you still want the code I'll slap together a ruff copy for you and ship it across. Nader Henein Roy Shan wrote: Hello, Nader: I am very interested in how you implement the atomicity. Could you send me a copy of your code? Thanks in advance. Roy __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail - 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]
Re: Atomicity in Lucene operations
Hi Nader, I would greatly appreciate it if you could CC me on the docs or the code. Thanks! Yonik --- Nader Henein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's pretty integrated into our system at this point, I'm working on Packaging it and cleaning up my documentation and then I'll make it available, I can give you the documents and if you still want the code I'll slap together a ruff copy for you and ship it across. Nader Henein Roy Shan wrote: Hello, Nader: I am very interested in how you implement the atomicity. Could you send me a copy of your code? Thanks in advance. Roy __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Atomicity in Lucene operations
Maybe you can contribute it to sandbox? On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 08:31:30 -0700 (PDT), Yonik Seeley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Nader, I would greatly appreciate it if you could CC me on the docs or the code. Thanks! Yonik --- Nader Henein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's pretty integrated into our system at this point, I'm working on Packaging it and cleaning up my documentation and then I'll make it available, I can give you the documents and if you still want the code I'll slap together a ruff copy for you and ship it across. Nader Henein Roy Shan wrote: Hello, Nader: I am very interested in how you implement the atomicity. Could you send me a copy of your code? Thanks in advance. Roy __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Roy **May I open-source your mind?** - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Atomicity in Lucene operations
Hello, Nader: I am very interested in how you implement the atomicity. Could you send me a copy of your code? Thanks in advance. Roy On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 01:20:09 +0400, Nader Henein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We use Lucene over 4 replicated indecies and we have to maintain atomicity on deletion and updates with multiple fallback points. I'll send you the right up, it's too big to CC the entire board. nader henein Christian Rodriguez wrote: Hello guys, I need additions and deletions of documents to the index to be ATOMIC (they either happen to completion or not at all). On top of this, I need updates (which I currently implement with a deletion of the document followed by an addition) to be ATOMIC and DURABLE (once I return from the update function its because the operation happened to completion and stays in the index). Notice that I dont really need all the ACID properties for all the operations. I have tried to solve the problem by using the Lucene + BDB package written by Andi Vajda and using transactions, but the BDB database gets corrupted if I insert random System.exit() to simulate a crash of the application before aborting or commiting transactions. So I have two questions: 1. Has anyone been able to use the Lucene + BDB WITH transactions and simulate random crashes at different points in the process of addding items and found it to be robust (specially, have you been able to always recover after a crash, with uncommited txns rolled back and commited ones present in the DB)? 2. Can anyone suggest other solutions (beside using BDB) that may work? For example: are any of these operations already atomic in Lucene (using an FSDirectory)? Thanks for any help you can give me! Xtian - 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] -- Roy **May I open-source your mind?** - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Atomicity in Lucene operations
It's pretty integrated into our system at this point, I'm working on Packaging it and cleaning up my documentation and then I'll make it available, I can give you the documents and if you still want the code I'll slap together a ruff copy for you and ship it across. Nader Henein Roy Shan wrote: Hello, Nader: I am very interested in how you implement the atomicity. Could you send me a copy of your code? Thanks in advance. Roy On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 01:20:09 +0400, Nader Henein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We use Lucene over 4 replicated indecies and we have to maintain atomicity on deletion and updates with multiple fallback points. I'll send you the right up, it's too big to CC the entire board. nader henein Christian Rodriguez wrote: Hello guys, I need additions and deletions of documents to the index to be ATOMIC (they either happen to completion or not at all). On top of this, I need updates (which I currently implement with a deletion of the document followed by an addition) to be ATOMIC and DURABLE (once I return from the update function its because the operation happened to completion and stays in the index). Notice that I dont really need all the ACID properties for all the operations. I have tried to solve the problem by using the Lucene + BDB package written by Andi Vajda and using transactions, but the BDB database gets corrupted if I insert random System.exit() to simulate a crash of the application before aborting or commiting transactions. So I have two questions: 1. Has anyone been able to use the Lucene + BDB WITH transactions and simulate random crashes at different points in the process of addding items and found it to be robust (specially, have you been able to always recover after a crash, with uncommited txns rolled back and commited ones present in the DB)? 2. Can anyone suggest other solutions (beside using BDB) that may work? For example: are any of these operations already atomic in Lucene (using an FSDirectory)? Thanks for any help you can give me! Xtian - 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] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Atomicity in Lucene operations
We use Lucene over 4 replicated indecies and we have to maintain atomicity on deletion and updates with multiple fallback points. I'll send you the right up, it's too big to CC the entire board. nader henein Christian Rodriguez wrote: Hello guys, I need additions and deletions of documents to the index to be ATOMIC (they either happen to completion or not at all). On top of this, I need updates (which I currently implement with a deletion of the document followed by an addition) to be ATOMIC and DURABLE (once I return from the update function its because the operation happened to completion and stays in the index). Notice that I dont really need all the ACID properties for all the operations. I have tried to solve the problem by using the Lucene + BDB package written by Andi Vajda and using transactions, but the BDB database gets corrupted if I insert random System.exit() to simulate a crash of the application before aborting or commiting transactions. So I have two questions: 1. Has anyone been able to use the Lucene + BDB WITH transactions and simulate random crashes at different points in the process of addding items and found it to be robust (specially, have you been able to always recover after a crash, with uncommited txns rolled back and commited ones present in the DB)? 2. Can anyone suggest other solutions (beside using BDB) that may work? For example: are any of these operations already atomic in Lucene (using an FSDirectory)? Thanks for any help you can give me! Xtian - 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]
