Are you using RAMDirectory? I am actually also dealing with a memory leak. My case is only particular to RAMDirectory.
http://markmail.org/message/dfgcnnjglne3wynp However, this RAMDirectory case is not as simple as setting searcher=null, because I found some reference to RAMDirectory is held by some ThreadLocal variables.(but I need to reuse thread also). Here is the reference tree: org.apache.lucene.store.RAMDirectory |- directory of org.apache.lucene.store.RAMFile |- file of org.apache.lucene.store.RAMInputStream |- base of org.apache.lucene.index.CompoundFileReader$CSIndexInput |- input of org.apache.lucene.index.SegmentTermEnum |- value of java.lang.ThreadLocal$ThreadLocalMap$Entry I am trying to track it down now. If anyone knows about it, please let me know. -- Chris Lu ------------------------- Instant Scalable Full-Text Search On Any Database/Application site: http://www.dbsight.net demo: http://search.dbsight.com Lucene Database Search in 3 minutes: http://wiki.dbsight.com/index.php?title=Create_Lucene_Database_Search_in_3_minutes DBSight customer, a shopping comparison site, (anonymous per request) got 2.6 Million Euro funding! On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 8:43 AM, Andy33 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > If I don't keep the IndexSearcher as a Singleton and instead open and close > a > new one each time, I have a large memory leak (probably due to the large > queries I am doing). After watching the memory a while, I still believe I > have a small memory leak even when the Directory, Analyzer, and > IndexSearcher are Singletons. My free memory slowly becomes smaller after > each query. Any ideas on what that may be due to? > > Here's my updated code... > > private synchronized Hits doQuery(String field, String queryStr, Sort > sortOrder, String indexDirectory) throws Exception > { > Directory directory = null; > Query query = null; > QueryParser parser = null; > > try > { > directory = DirectorySingleton.getInstance(indexDirectory); > ivIndexSearcher = (IndexSearcher) > SearcherSingleton.getInstance(directory); > > //search the index > parser = new QueryParser(field, > AnalyzerSingleton.getInstance()); > query = parser.parse(queryStr); > > return ivIndexSearcher.search(query, sortOrder); > } > finally > { > if(null != directory) > { > directory.close(); > } > > directory = null; > parser = null; > query = null; > } > } > > > -------------- > Example Singleton > > public class SearcherSingleton > { > private static volatile HashMap<Directory, Searcher> cvSearches = new > HashMap<Directory, Searcher>(); > > > protected SearcherSingleton() > { > > } > > > public static Searcher getInstance(Directory directory) throws > IOException > { > if(!cvSearches.containsKey(directory)) > { > synchronized(SearcherSingleton.class) > { > if(!cvSearches.containsKey(directory)) > { > cvSearches.put(directory, new IndexSearcher(directory)); > } > } > } > > return cvSearches.get(directory); > } > > } > > > > 장용석 wrote: > > > > In fact, I think that the important reasons are Directory class and > > Analyzer > > class. > > If you don't want IndexSearcher class keep open for the entire life of a > > web > > application, you can do it. > > I think It will not cause memory leak problem. > > But, Directory and Analyzer classes can cause the problem if they new > > created by method call every time. I think... > > Only keep two classes Directory and Analyzer by singlton and do test. :) > > > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://www.nabble.com/Lucene-Memory-Leak-tp19276999p19333985.html > Sent from the Lucene - Java Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
