IndexReader.open() is done?
Mohsen.
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Doesn-it-make-sense-cache-IndexReader--tp18502361p18502361.html
Sent from the Lucene - Java Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
-
To unsubscribe
hi Mohsen,
IndexReader is thread-save so you don't need a cache.
Opening and closing an IndexReader takes some time. But I don't now if this is
measurable.
So if you know that you don't want to change a index, let the IndexReader open.
(somebody disagree with me?)
If you want to use your main m
Mohsen.
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Doesn-it-make-sense-cache-IndexReader--tp18502361p18511667.html
Sent from the Lucene - Java Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [E
With very small indexes and no sort fields (eg. you just use relevance)
loading an IndexReader does not take very long. I think it does always
make sense to cache it and reuse it though - unless the index has
changed, there is no reason to pay the price of opening a new
IndexReader. As your ind
