On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 7:26 PM, Jason
Rutherglen wrote:
>> EG you could imagine an addIndexes* call getting started,
>> completing a few merges. Then, concurrently, CMS picks & chooses
>> some of those added external segments to merge with some of the
>> original segments. Then addIndexes hits an
> EG you could imagine an addIndexes* call getting started,
> completing a few merges. Then, concurrently, CMS picks & chooses
> some of those added external segments to merge with some of the
> original segments. Then addIndexes hits an exception. What do we
> do?
An exception due to an IO error
> EG you could imagine an addIndexes* call getting started,
completing a few merges. Then, concurrently, CMS picks & chooses
some of those added external segments to merge with some of the
original segments. Then addIndexes hits an exception. What do we
do?
Right because we're rolling back all the
I agree, there's no real reason why addIndexes can run concurrently
with other things. It's just software ;)
One challenge is the transactional guarantee that addIndexes provide,
ie, it's all or none. If there's an exception while adding, then
nothing was added.
But, that was added before autoC
On Thu, 31 May 2007, Steven Parkes wrote:
Hmmm ... something's not meshing for me here.
If I understood what you've said, you have a DbD index to which you are
addIndexes'ing a memory index? I must have missed something, because
addIndexes pre- and post-optimizes the target (Dbd) index, not th
riginal Message-
From: Andi Vajda [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2007 10:10 AM
To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: addIndexes()
On Thu, 31 May 2007, Doug Cutting wrote:
> Steven Parkes wrote:
>> Is there any particular reason that the version that takes a
On Thu, 31 May 2007, Doug Cutting wrote:
Steven Parkes wrote:
Is there any particular reason that the version that takes a Directory[]
optimizes first?
There was, but unfortunately I can't recall it now. Index merging has
changed substantially since then, so, whatever it was, it may no lon
Steven Parkes wrote:
Is there any particular reason that the version that takes a Directory[]
optimizes first?
There was, but unfortunately I can't recall it now. Index merging has
changed substantially since then, so, whatever it was, it may no longer
apply. If no one can think of a good r
