[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1203?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12575757#action_12575757
]
Mindaugas Žakšauskas commented on LUCENE-1203:
----------------------------------------------
In this case FAQ and IndexSearcher Javadoc needs updating as they're clearly
misleading on this case.
What would be your recommendation for minimizing the number of file descriptors
used? We experience this problem and it's a real show stopper for us (see my
post to the users mailing list).
Also, could you elaborate why is it harmful to add the setter? I was taught to
avoid object creation if I can to save performance on garbage collection
(regardless if the object is lightweight or not). Say, if I add 1000 new
objects to the index, I potentially need to create 1000 object instances. Can't
think of any reason of why can it be good.
Thanks!
> [PATCH] Allow setting IndexReader to IndexSearcher
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-1203
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1203
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Search
> Affects Versions: 2.3.1
> Environment: Linux/2.6
> Reporter: Mindaugas Žakšauskas
> Attachments: IndexReaderSetter4IndexSearcher.patch
>
>
> As I've received no counter-arguments for my Lucene Java-User mailing list
> (see
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/lucene-java-user/200803.mbox/[EMAIL
> PROTECTED]), I would like to propose adding a setter to set new instance of
> IndexReader to IndexSearcher.
> Why is this needed?
> The FAQ
> (http://wiki.apache.org/lucene-java/LuceneFAQ#head-48921635adf2c968f7936dc07d51dfb40d638b82)
> says:
> bq. ??"Make sure you only open one IndexSearcher, and share it among all of
> the threads that are doing searches -- this is safe, and it will minimize the
> number of files that are open concurently."??
> So does the JavaDoc
> (http://lucene.apache.org/java/2_3_1/api/core/org/apache/lucene/search/IndexSearcher.html).
> In my application, I don't want to expose anything about IndexReader; all
> they need to know is Searcher - see my post to the mailing list how would I
> do this. However, if the index is updated, reopened reader cannot be set back
> to IndexSearcher, a new instance of IndexSearcher needs to be created (*which
> contradicts FAQ and Javadoc*).
> At the moment, the only way to go around this is to create a surrogate
> subclass of IndexSearcher and set new instance of IndexReader. A simple
> setter would just do the job.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
