Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-jackrabbit-users-archive@locus.apache.org Received: (qmail 20317 invoked from network); 12 Aug 2008 07:52:24 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 12 Aug 2008 07:52:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 60317 invoked by uid 500); 12 Aug 2008 07:52:22 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-jackrabbit-users-archive@jackrabbit.apache.org Received: (qmail 60298 invoked by uid 500); 12 Aug 2008 07:52:22 -0000 Mailing-List: contact users-help@jackrabbit.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: users@jackrabbit.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list users@jackrabbit.apache.org Received: (qmail 60287 invoked by uid 99); 12 Aug 2008 07:52:22 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 12 Aug 2008 00:52:22 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [194.126.145.18] (HELO netcetera.ch) (194.126.145.18) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 12 Aug 2008 07:51:26 +0000 Received: from [172.17.0.248] (oboe [172.17.0.248]) by netcetera.ch (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id m7C7m7pg022562 for ; Tue, 12 Aug 2008 09:48:07 +0200 (MEST) Message-ID: <48A1403F.5050900@netcetera.ch> Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 09:48:15 +0200 From: Wolfgang Habicht Reply-To: wolfgang.habicht@netcetera.ch Organization: Netcetera AG User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (Windows/20080708) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: users@jackrabbit.apache.org Subject: inconstistent index - query result does not match nodes accessed through their path Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org Hi we have diagnosed a strange behavior on using Jackrabbit 1.3.3: After adding/modifying a node we get different results whether accessing the node directly through its path (correct answer) or by using the query engine (node does not exist/old value). It seems that the search-index is not always correctly updated. Does anyone know this problem? What do you think, should it help to upgrade to Lucene 2.2.0 or 2.3.2? Is upgrading Lucene possible without any code change? Additional information: For the query we use SearchManager.createQuery(...).execute(); A simple restart of the system does not help, however deleting the index before starting again helps. Thanks, Wolfgang Habicht