Hi Ian, 2015-07-24 11:11 GMT+02:00 Ian Boston <i...@tfd.co.uk>:
> Hi Tommaso, > > My knowledge of Solr is not anything like as deep as yours. I would like to > check what I know is correct, to avoid sharing the wrong information. > > In [1] the first test does not commit and is backed by a RAMDirectory > shared by the reader and writer. Does that mean that Lucene natively only > supports NRT inside a single JVM, and if the JVM dies anything not hard > committed (if the RAMDirectory was backed by a FileDirectory) would be lost > yes, exactly. > or is recovery of soft commits and pre-soft commits now handled > automatically in Lucene4. > no, that's not part of Lucene as far as I know; that's Solr allowing soft commits [1], which use Lucene's NRT capabilities and a transaction log [2], if JVM crashes soft commits are recovered from the transaction log and re-executed once Solr is restarted. > > Last time I looked at the source code was shortly before Lucene 4.0 was > released which was some years back. > Regards, Tommaso [1] : http://wiki.apache.org/solr/UpdateXmlMessages#A.22commit.22_and_.22optimize.22 [2] : http://lucidworks.com/blog/understanding-transaction-logs-softcommit-and-commit-in-sorlcloud/ > > Best Regards > Ian > > On 24 July 2015 at 09:49, Tommaso Teofili <tommaso.teof...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > I think the proposal makes sense; in the end NRT is something that is > > inherently supported by Lucene (see an example [1]) and, as Ian > mentioned, > > something that has been similarly implemented in ES and Solr. > > > > I think it'd be possible though to make use of Lucene's NRT capability by > > changing a bit the code that creates an IndexReader [2] to use > > DirectoryReader#open(IndexWriter,boolean) [3]. > > > > My 2 cents, > > Tommaso > > > > [1] : https://gist.github.com/mocobeta/4640263 > > [2] : > > > > > https://github.com/apache/jackrabbit-oak/blob/trunk/oak-lucene/src/main/java/org/apache/jackrabbit/oak/plugins/index/lucene/IndexNode.java#L94 > > [3] : > > > > > https://lucene.apache.org/core/4_7_0/core/org/apache/lucene/index/DirectoryReader.html#open(org.apache.lucene.index.IndexWriter > > , > > boolean) > > > > 2015-07-24 10:23 GMT+02:00 Michael Marth <mma...@adobe.com>: > > > > > > > > >The reason I preferred using Lucene is that current > > > >property index only support single condition evaluation. > > > > > > I did not know this. That’s a strong argument in favour of using > Lucene. > > > > > >
