lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Doug Cutting <>
Subject Re: GData, updateable IndexSearcher
Date Wed, 26 Apr 2006 20:44:08 GMT
jason rutherglen wrote:
> I was thinking you implied that you knew of someone who had customized their own, but
it was a closed source solution.  And if so then you would know how that project faired. 

I don't recall the details, but I know folks have discussed this 
previously, and probably even posted patches, but I don't think any of 
the patches was ready to commit.

> Wouldn't there also need to be a hack on the IndexWriter to keep track of new segments?

I think the 'public static IndexReader.reopen(IndexReader old)' method I 
proposed can easily compare the current list of segments for the 
directory of old to those that old already has open, and determine which 
can be reused and which new segments must be opened.  Deletions would be 
a little tricky to track.  If a segment has had deletions, then a new 
SegmentReader could be cloned from the old, sharing everything but the 
deletions, which could be re-read from disk.  This would invalidate 
cached filters for segments that had deletions.

You could even try to figure out what documents have been deleted, then 
update filters incrementally.  That would be fastest, but more complicated.


> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Doug Cutting <>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2006 11:27:44 AM
> Subject: Re: GData, updateable IndexSearcher
> jason rutherglen wrote:
>>Interesting, does this mean there is a plan for incrementally updateable IndexSearchers
to become part of Lucene?
> In general, there is no plan for Lucene.  If someone implements a 
> generally useful, efficient, feature in a back-compatible, easy to use, 
> manner, and submits it as a patch, then it becomes a part of Lucene. 
> That's the way Lucene changes.  Since we don't pay anyone, we can't make 
> plans and assign tasks.  So if you're particularly interested in this 
> feature, you might search the archives to find past efforts, or simply 
> try to implement it yourself.
> I think a good approach would be to create a new IndexSearcher instance 
> based on an existing one, that shares IndexReaders.  Similarly, one 
> should be able to create a new IndexReader based on an existing one. 
> This would be a MultiReader that shares many of the same SegmentReaders.
> Things get a little tricky after this.
> Lucene caches filters based on the IndexReader.  So filters would need 
> to be re-created.  Ideally these could be incrementally re-created, but 
> that might be difficult.  What might be simpler would be to use a 
> MultiSearcher constructed with an IndexSearcher per SegmentReader, 
> avoiding the use of MultiReader.  Then the caches would still work. 
> This would require making a few things public that are not at present. 
> Perhaps adding a 'MultiReader.getSubReaders()' method, combined with an 
> 'static IndexReader.reopen(IndexReader)' method.  The latter would 
> return a new MultiReader that shared SegmentReaders with the old 
> version.  Then one could use getSubReaders() on the new multi reader to 
> extract the current set to use when constructing a MultiSearcher.
> Another tricky bit is figuring out when to close readers.
> Does this make sense?  This discussion should probably move to the 
> lucene-dev list.
>>Are there any negatives to updateable IndexSearchers?  
> Not if implemented well!
> Doug

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message