lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Robert Muir (Commented) (JIRA)" <>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (LUCENE-3607) Lucene Index files can not be reproduced faithfully (due to timestamps embedded)
Date Mon, 28 Nov 2011 22:23:40 GMT


Robert Muir commented on LUCENE-3607:

That's a requirement in many safety critical areas.

Keep in mind this is a search engine library, the whole concept is based on heuristics. 
Honestly if someone wants to use lucene for something 'safety critical', I think this 
timestamp field should be at the bottom of their priority list. But see below:

I'd like to assert that there is tangible gain in an index that's binary reproducable.
I'd rather claim that I don't see the advantage of an index that has the timestamp of its
creation embedded.

Well I don't think there is a big need to change the default here, and I also don't 
think we need to find any consensus or one-size-fits-all here, we have a flexible 
indexing api in 4.0 so that you can customize things like this.

> Lucene Index files can not be reproduced faithfully (due to timestamps embedded)
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>                 Key: LUCENE-3607
>                 URL:
>             Project: Lucene - Java
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: core/index
>    Affects Versions: 2.9.1
>         Environment: Eclipse 3.7
>            Reporter: Martin Oberhuber
>            Assignee: Michael McCandless
> Eclipse 3.7 uses Lucene 2.9.1 for indexing online help content. A pre-generated help
index can be shipped together with online content. As per
>    [[ ]]
> it turns out that the help index can not be faithfully reproduced during a build, because
there are timestamps embedded in the index files, and the "NameCounter" field in segments_2
contains different contents on every build.
> Not being able to faithfully reproduce the index from identical source bits undermines
trust in the index (and software delivery) being correct.
> I'm wondering whether this is a known issue and/or has been addressed in a newer Lucene
version already ?

This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators:!default.jspa
For more information on JIRA, see:


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

View raw message