Mailing-List: contact users-help@jackrabbit.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: users@jackrabbit.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: local policy)
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: inconstistent index - query result does not match nodes accessed
 through their path
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 10:25:55 +0200
Message-ID: <F8E386B54CE3E6408F3A32ABB9A7908AC50614@hai02.hippointern.lan>
In-Reply-To: <48A1403F.5050900@netcetera.ch>
Thread-Topic: inconstistent index - query result does not match nodes accessed
 through their path
Thread-Index: Acj8UFy66jyhiUnbTDGTTmpdK9C7lgABC51A
References: <48A1403F.5050900@netcetera.ch>
From: "Ard Schrijvers" <a.schrijvers@onehippo.com>
To: <users@jackrabbit.apache.org>,
	<wolfgang.habicht@netcetera.ch>

Hello,
>=20
> Hi
>=20
> we have diagnosed a strange behavior on using Jackrabbit 1.3.3:
> After adding/modifying a node we get different results=20
> whether accessing the node directly through its path (correct=20
> answer) or by using the query engine (node does not exist/old value).
> It seems that the search-index is not always correctly updated.
>=20
> Does anyone know this problem?
> What do you think, should it help to upgrade to Lucene 2.2.0=20
> or 2.3.2?=20
> Is upgrading Lucene possible without any code change?

An issue with searching does not mean directly an issue with lucene.
Lucene is a search library, Jackrabbit has an implementation of this.
Furthermore, jackrabbit is currently not compatible with lucene 2.3.2.
IMHO, always use dependencies that ship with a version of Jackrabbit to
avoid obscure behavior.=20

Anyway, why not try to upgrade to the latest Jackrabbit release instead
of just updating some (lucene) jar dependency?

-Ard

>=20
> Additional information:
> For the query we use SearchManager.createQuery(...).execute();
> A simple restart of the system does not help, however=20
> deleting the index before starting again helps.
>=20
>=20
> Thanks,
> Wolfgang Habicht
>=20