I was wrong, analyzer does have the close function. I closed my analyzer,
but the steady climb in memory is still there.
I wonder if I should create a global analyzer variable and enclose it in a
lock to make sure there isn't any thread issues and use that instead.
Could it be a leak in the analyzer itself?
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 12:16 PM, Trevor Watson <
powersearchsoftw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't recall seeing a close function on the analyzer. But I will
> definitely take a look. Thanks!
>
>
> On Tuesday, November 29, 2011, Oren Eini (Ayende Rahien) <
> aye...@ayende.com> wrote:
> > You need to close the analyzer.
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 12:32 AM, Trevor Watson <
> > powersearchsoftw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I'm using the following block of code. The document is created in
> another
> >> function and written to the Lucene index via an IndexWriter
> >>
> >> private void SaveFileToFileInfo(Lucene.Net.Index.IndexWriter iw, bool
> >> delayCommit, string sDataPath)
> >> {
> >> Document doc = getFileInfoDoc(sDataPath);
> >> Analyzer analyzer = clsLuceneFunctions.getAnalyzer();
> >> if (this.FileID == 0)
> >> {
> >> string s = "";
> >> }
> >> iw.UpdateDocument(new Lucene.Net.Index.Term("FileId",
> >> this.fileID.ToString("000000000")), doc, analyzer);
> >> analyzer = null;
> >> doc = null;
> >> if (!delayCommit)
> >> iw.Commit();
> >> }
> >>
> >> When the UpdateDocument line is commented out, everything seems to run
> >> fine. When that line of code is run, it slowly creeps up. However, it
> >> used to work on some computers and now works on 1 or 2, but fails on our
> >> client's computers.
> >>
> >> Is there an issue with UpdateDocument that I am not aware of in 2.9.2.2?
> >>
> >> Thanks in advance.
> >>
> >
>
