> updating?
>
>
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/incremental-update-of-index-tp20426316p23553924.html
Sent from the Lucene - Java Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: jav
It all depends on how many updates you're doing, which
you haven't told us .
If a large majority of your index is being updated, there's
no particular reason to update, I'd build a new one.
Best
Erick
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 3:09 PM, ChadDavis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> That's what I thought.
That's what I thought.
So, that leads me to . . . is it necessarily all that much faster to index
in an incremental update fashion, rather than just clobbering the old index?
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 12:52 PM, Erick Erickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> You have to have indexed something that un
ChadDavis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 11/10/2008 02:22:45 PM:
> In the FAQ's it says that you have to do a manual incremental update:
>
> How do I update a document or a set of documents that are already
indexed?
> >
> > There is no direct update procedure in Lucene. To update an index
> > incr
You have to have indexed something that uniquely identifies the
document in order to know what the old one is. Really, this is
the same question as updating, isn't it? If you could update
a document in place, you'd have to know what document
that was. If you know that information, you know which
do
In the FAQ's it says that you have to do a manual incremental update:
How do I update a document or a set of documents that are already indexed?
>
> There is no direct update procedure in Lucene. To update an index
> incrementally you must first *delete* the documents that were updated, and
> *the
