On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 12:45 PM, Michael McCandless <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yonik Seeley wrote: >> No, it would essentially be a change in the semantics that all >> implementations would need to support. > > Right, which is you are allowed to open an IndexInput on a file when an > IndexOutput has that same file open and is still appending to it.
Not just that, but that the size can actually grow after the IndexInput has been opened, and that should be visible. That would seem necessary for sharing the IndexInput (via a clone). >>> So we may have to flush after writing each document. >> >> Flush when creating a new index view (which could possibly be after >> every document is added, but doesn't have to be). > > Assuming we can make the above semantics requirement change to IndexInput, > we don't need to flush on opening a new RAM reader? Yes, we would need to flush... I was just pointing out that you don't necessarily need a new RAM reader for every document added (but that is the worst case scenario). -Yonik --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
