Well, don't label things urgent. Since this forum is is free, you have
no right to demand a quick response.
You'd get better responses if there was some evidence that you
actually tried to find answers to your questions before posting
them. We all have other duties, and taking time out to answer
Erick Erickson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 5:51 PM
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Urgent] deleteDocuments fails after merging ...
* This message comes from the Internet Network *
Well, don't label things urgent. Since this forum is is free, y
Erick Erickson wrote:
The javadocs point out that this line
* int* nb = mIndexReaderClone.deleteDocuments(urlTerm)
removes*all* documents for a given term. So of course you'll fail
to delete any documents the second time you call
deleteDocuments with the same term.
Isn't the code snippet belo
org
Subject: Re: [Urgent] deleteDocuments fails after merging ...
* This message comes from the Internet Network *
Erick Erickson wrote:
> The javadocs point out that this line
>
> * int* nb = mIndexReaderClone.deleteDocuments(urlTerm)
>
> removes*all* documents for a given
: I just have two IndexSearchers opened now most of the time, which is
: deprecated,
: But I think that's my only choice !
2 searchers is fine ... it's "N" where N is not bound that you want to
avoid.
from what i understand of your requirements, you don't *really* need two
searchers open ... ope
Chris Hostetter wrote:
the only real reason you should really need 2 searchers at a time is if
you are searching other queries in parallel threads at the same time ...
or if you are warming up one new searcher that's "ondeck" while still
serving queries with an older searcher.
Hoss, I hope I mi
: > the only real reason you should really need 2 searchers at a time is if
: > you are searching other queries in parallel threads at the same time ...
: > or if you are warming up one new searcher that's "ondeck" while still
: > serving queries with an older searcher.
:
: Hoss, I hope I misunder
