lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Yonik Seeley (Commented) (JIRA)" <>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (LUCENE-3607) Lucene Index files can not be reproduced faithfully (due to timestamps embedded)
Date Mon, 28 Nov 2011 21:47:40 GMT


Yonik Seeley commented on LUCENE-3607:

bq. Wait, does Solr replication really rely on the IR.getVersion being seeded with a timestamp?

IIRC, it's used somewhere.

bq. Does it somehow compare IR.getVersion across different indices?

"Different" is rather subjective.  Someone can blow away an index and recreate the same logical
index (even though it's a different index from Lucene's POV).

bq. I think we should seed with 0 instead

I think we should keep the current behavior.  It has some nice properties, and isn't broken.
 Index versions increase over time (unless you delete and recreate an index in less than a

bq. I don't think we should make any promises about how IR.getVersion compares across unrelated
indices, only within the same index.

Not making any promises is different than purposely breaking it for no gain.

> 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