yes that would be ok for my, as long as I can reuse my child analyzer.
On 11/27/06, Wolfgang Hoschek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Nov 27, 2006, at 9:57 AM, jm wrote: > On 11/27/06, Wolfgang Hoschek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> On Nov 26, 2006, at 8:57 AM, jm wrote: >> >> > I tested this. I use a single static analyzer for all my documents, >> > and the caching analyzer was not working properly. I had to add a >> > method to clear the cache each time a new document was to be >> indexed, >> > and then it worked as expected. I have never looked into lucenes >> inner >> > working so I am not sure if what I did is correct. >> >> Makes sense, I've now incorporated that as well by adding a clear() >> method and extracting the functionality into a public class >> AnalyzerUtil.TokenCachingAnalyzer. > yes, same here, I could have posted my code, sorry, but I was not > sure if it was even correct... > When theres is a new lucene 2.1 or whatever I'll incorporate to that > optimization into my code. thanks Actually, now I'm considering reverting back to the version without a public clear() method. The rationale is that this would be less complex and more consistent with the AnalyzerUtil design (simple methods generating simple anonymous analyzer wrappers). If desired, you can still (re)use a single static "child" analyzer instance. It's cheap and easy to create a new caching analyzer on top of the static analyzer, and to do so before each document. The old one will simply be gc'd. Let me know if that'd work for you. Wolfgang. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
