Re: Indexing and Re-crawling site
Hi, One thing that I realized yesterday while looking into Hadoop code is that as of now it is not possible to update existing file in HDFS. If I understood it correctly then HDFS is write-once file system and you can not update (add/remove content) to an existing file. Since Nutch can run on top of HDFS it makes very sense to me why it works the way it does today. Regards, Lukas On 12/5/06, Armel T. Nene [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Lukas, This is more for Nutch experts but to me it seems that new index is reasonable. Besides others it means that original index is still searchable while the new index is being created (creating a new index can take long time based on your settings). Updating one document at a time in large index is not very optimal approach I think. I see your point but indexing could be a long process only if the all the files need to be re-fetched entirely. I don't know how this work, if the fetcher re-fetches everything and checks for the STATUS_UNMODIFIED before creating a segments out of it. The way I set it up at the moment is; the crawler will crawl a set of files at a time and so on but it also checks to see if the files held in the segments are up to date. My question is, when creating a new index, you said the old index will still be available until the new one is created, but what happens if someone is running a search while the IndexMerger is executing? I guess the old index gets deleted and replaced, does that mean an exception will be thrown while the index is being replaced? Regards, Armel -Original Message- From: Lukas Vlcek [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 04 December 2006 22:12 To: nutch-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: Indexing and Re-crawling site Hi, I will try to use my out-dated knowledge to answer ( confuse you on) your items: 1. Why does nutch has to create a new index every time when indexing, while it can just merge it with the old existing index? I try to change the value in the IndexMerger class to 'false' while creating an index therefore Lucene doesn't recreate a new index each time it is indexing. The problem with this is, I keep on having some exception when it tries to merge the indexes. There is a lock time out exception that is thrown by the IndexMerger. And consequently the index that get created. Is it possible to let nutch index by merging it with an existing index? I have to crawl about 100Gb of data and if there are only a few documents that have been changed, I don't nutch to recreate a new index because of that but update the existing index by merging it with the new one. I need some light on this. This is more for Nutch experts but to me it seems that new index is reasonable. Besides others it means that original index is still searchable while the new index is being created (creating a new index can take long time based on your settings). Updating one document at a time in large index is not very optimal approach I think. 2. What is the best way to make nutch re-crawl? I have implemented a class that loops the crawl process; it has a crawl interval which is set in a property file and a running status. The running status is a Boolean variable which is set to true if the re-crawl process is ongoing or false if it should stop. But with this approach, it seems that the index is not being fully generated. The values in the index cannot be queried. The re-crawl is in java which calls an underlying ant script to run nutch. I know most re-crawl are written as batch script but can you tell me which one do you recommended? A batch script or a loop-based java program? I used to use batch and was happy with it. 3. What is the best way of implementing nutch has a window service or unix daemon? Sorry - what do you mean byt this? Regards, Lukas
RE: Indexing and Re-crawling site
Lukas, I was wondering about running Nutch as Windows Services. I was able to implement it as follow: 1.Creating a java program that will act as a Nutch and Launcher and re-crawler. 2.Download JavaService from http://javaservice.objectweb.org/ 3.Follow the tutorial to turn your java program in a Window service I then was able to test it on Windows Server 2003 and XP. It works fine. If you want to me to post the code let me know, maybe others can use it too. Regards, Armel -Original Message- From: Lukas Vlcek [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 04 December 2006 22:12 To: nutch-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: Indexing and Re-crawling site Hi, I will try to use my out-dated knowledge to answer ( confuse you on) your items: 1. Why does nutch has to create a new index every time when indexing, while it can just merge it with the old existing index? I try to change the value in the IndexMerger class to 'false' while creating an index therefore Lucene doesn't recreate a new index each time it is indexing. The problem with this is, I keep on having some exception when it tries to merge the indexes. There is a lock time out exception that is thrown by the IndexMerger. And consequently the index that get created. Is it possible to let nutch index by merging it with an existing index? I have to crawl about 100Gb of data and if there are only a few documents that have been changed, I don't nutch to recreate a new index because of that but update the existing index by merging it with the new one. I need some light on this. This is more for Nutch experts but to me it seems that new index is reasonable. Besides others it means that original index is still searchable while the new index is being created (creating a new index can take long time based on your settings). Updating one document at a time in large index is not very optimal approach I think. 2. What is the best way to make nutch re-crawl? I have implemented a class that loops the crawl process; it has a crawl interval which is set in a property file and a running status. The running status is a Boolean variable which is set to true if the re-crawl process is ongoing or false if it should stop. But with this approach, it seems that the index is not being fully generated. The values in the index cannot be queried. The re-crawl is in java which calls an underlying ant script to run nutch. I know most re-crawl are written as batch script but can you tell me which one do you recommended? A batch script or a loop-based java program? I used to use batch and was happy with it. 3. What is the best way of implementing nutch has a window service or unix daemon? Sorry - what do you mean byt this? Regards, Lukas
Indexing and Re-crawling site
Hi guys, I have a few questions regarding the way nutch indexes and the best way a recrawl can be implemented. 1. Why does nutch has to create a new index every time when indexing, while it can just merge it with the old existing index? I try to change the value in the IndexMerger class to 'false' while creating an index therefore Lucene doesn't recreate a new index each time it is indexing. The problem with this is, I keep on having some exception when it tries to merge the indexes. There is a lock time out exception that is thrown by the IndexMerger. And consequently the index that get created. Is it possible to let nutch index by merging it with an existing index? I have to crawl about 100Gb of data and if there are only a few documents that have been changed, I don't nutch to recreate a new index because of that but update the existing index by merging it with the new one. I need some light on this. 2. What is the best way to make nutch re-crawl? I have implemented a class that loops the crawl process; it has a crawl interval which is set in a property file and a running status. The running status is a Boolean variable which is set to true if the re-crawl process is ongoing or false if it should stop. But with this approach, it seems that the index is not being fully generated. The values in the index cannot be queried. The re-crawl is in java which calls an underlying ant script to run nutch. I know most re-crawl are written as batch script but can you tell me which one do you recommended? A batch script or a loop-based java program? 3. What is the best way of implementing nutch has a window service or unix daemon? Thanks, Armel
