Michael Celona wrote:
Just tried that... works like a charm... thanks...
Could you clarify what the problem was - just the overhead of opening IndexSearchers?
Michael
-----Original Message-----
From: Otis Gospodnetic [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 4:42 PM
To: Lucene Users List; Chris Lamprecht
Subject: Re: Search Performance
Or you could just open a new IndexSearcher, forget the old one, and have GC collect it when everyone is done with it.
Otis
--- Chris Lamprecht <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I should have mentioned, the reason for not doing this the obvious, simple way (just close the Searcher and reopen it if a new version is available) is because some threads could be in the middle of iterating through the search Hits. If you close the Searcher they get a Bad file descriptor IOException. As I found out the hard way :)
On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 15:03:29 -0600, Chris Lamprecht <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I recently dealt with the issue of re-using a Searcher with an
index
that changes often. I wrote a class that allows my searching
classes
to "check out" a lucene Searcher, perform a search, and then return the Searcher. It's similar to a database connection pool, except
that
--------------------------------------------------------------------- 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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
