On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 10:43 AM, Michael McCandless <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yonik Seeley wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 9:20 AM, Michael McCandless > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> But eg LUCENE-1231 talks about maybe eventually allowing updates to > >> fields, like how norms can be updated in a reader today. If we do > >> that, eg as part of flexible indexing, then we might need to worry > >> about synchronizing? > > > > If updates to fields are versioned like norms, one would not see the > > changes until a new reader is opened. > > Right, if the updates come through IndexWriter or through a different > IndexReader. But if you do the updates with an IndexReader (which > eventually commits to disk), and also use that IndexReader for > searching, we may need to synchronize?
IMO, if we want to support something like that, we could make it so the changes weren't visible until the next time the user called getFieldCache() (which would have knowledge about the change and create a new cache object, leaving the old object unaffected). -Yonik --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
