[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-5228?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13786107#comment-13786107
]
Shai Erera commented on LUCENE-5228:
------------------------------------
The problem is with Directories that don't support locking, e.g. on HDFS. But I
guess NoLockFactory is a reasonable solution for them. I don't think there's
any performance concern here because addIndexes(Directory...) is doing so much
work (depending on the index size of course), that acquiring a lock on each
Directory seems negligible.
Let's do that? And also change the jdoc so explicitly state that and the
NoLockFactory solution for Directories that cannot support locking?
> IndexWriter.addIndexes copies raw files but acquires no locks
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-5228
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-5228
> Project: Lucene - Core
> Issue Type: Bug
> Reporter: Robert Muir
>
> I see stuff like: "merge problem with lucene 3 and 4 indices" (from solr
> users list), and cannot even think how to respond to these users because so
> many things can go wrong with IndexWriter.addIndexes(Directory)
> it currently has in its javadocs:
> NOTE: the index in each Directory must not be changed (opened by a writer)
> while this method is running. This method does not acquire a write lock in
> each input Directory, so it is up to the caller to enforce this.
> This method should be acquiring locks: its copying *RAW FILES*. Otherwise we
> should remove it. If someone doesnt like that, or is mad because its 10ns
> slower, they can use NoLockFactory.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.1#6144)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
