But why do you feel the need to have a parallel reader that combines result sets across two indices based on docId?
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 12:17 AM, Nilesh Vijaywargiay < nilesh.vi...@gmail.com> wrote: > Pulkit, > Parallel reader takes the union of all fields for a given id. Thus if I > want > to add a field or modify a field of a document which has id 2 in index1, I > need to createa a document with id 2 in index2 with the fields I want to > add/modify. Thus parallel reader would treat them as fields of a single > document. > Now if I give doc.getFields() for that document then it would list fields > from index1 and index2. > > On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 9:04 PM, Pulkit Singhal <pulkitsing...@gmail.com > >wrote: > > > Look interesting, what is the merit in having a second index in order to > > keep the document id the same? Perhaps I have misunderstood. Just want to > > understand your motivation here. > > > > On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 2:57 PM, Nilesh Vijaywargiay < > > nilesh.vi...@gmail.com > > > wrote: > > > > > I've written a blog regarding a work around for updating index in > Lucene > > > using parallel reader. It's explained with results and pictures. > > > > > > It would be great if you have a look at it. The link: > > > http://the10minutes.blogspot.com/2010/10/lucene-index-update.html > > > > > > <http://the10minutes.blogspot.com/2010/10/lucene-index-update.html > > >Thanks > > > Nilesh > > > > > >
