Don't worry, regardless of what I learn in this forum I am telling my company to get me a copy of that bad boy when it comes out (which as far as I am concerned can't be soon enough). I will pay for grama's myself.
I think I have reviewed the code you are referring to and have something similar working in my own indexer (using the "uid"). All is well. My stupid question for the day is why would you ever want multiple indexes running if you can build one smart indexer that does everything as efficiently as possible? Does the answer to this question move me to multi threaded indexing territory? Thanks, Luke ----- Original Message ----- From: "Otis Gospodnetic" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Lucene Users List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2004 2:08 PM Subject: Re: Acedemic Question About Indexing > Uh, I hate to market it, but.... it's in the book. But you don't have > to wait for it, as there already is a Lucene demo that does what you > described. I am not sure if the demo always recreates the index or > whether it deletes and re-adds only the new and modified files, but if > it's the former, you would only need to modify the demo a little bit to > check the timestamps of File objects and compare them to those stored > in the index (if they are being stored - if not, you should add a field > to hold that data) > > Otis > > --- Luke Shannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I am working on debugging an existing Lucene implementation. > > > > Before I started, I built a demo to understand Lucene. In my demo I > > indexed > > the entire content hierarhcy all at once, and than optimize this > > index and > > used it for queries. It was time consuming but very simply. > > > > The code I am currently trying to fix indexes the content hierarchy > > by > > folder creating a seperate index for each one. Thus it ends up with a > > bunch > > of indexes. I still don't understand how this works (I am assuming > > they get > > merged someone that I have tracked down yet) but I have noticed it > > doesn't > > always index the right folder. This results in the users reporting > > "inconsistant" behavior in searching after they make a change to a > > document. > > To keep things simiple I would like to remove all the logic that > > figures out > > which folder to index and just do them all (usually less than 1000 > > files) so > > I end up with one index. > > > > Would indexing time be the only area I would be losing out in, or is > > there > > something more to the approach of creating multiple indexes and > > merging > > them. > > > > What is a good approach I can take to indexing a content hierarchy > > composed > > primarily of pdf, xsl, doc and xml where any of these documents can > > be > > changed several times a day? > > > > Thanks, > > > > Luke > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
