Mailing-List: contact java-user-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (athena.apache.org: local policy)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <27ff0e30911030221j43aa6353lf73276e6fe1b09ba@mail.gmail.com>
References: <27ff0e30910280345y815d2d9k91f986fe9e0eb5de@mail.gmail.com>
	 <867513fe0910280349j5585b568s72467419d8d8ead3@mail.gmail.com>
	 <27ff0e30910280417i5dcf8faeid74bee940df86aa8@mail.gmail.com>
	 <9ac0c6aa0910280447s5fc7fb21q154259209c379fb1@mail.gmail.com>
	 <27ff0e30911030124r1d8ea101u61f5ffc29013da1f@mail.gmail.com>
	 <9ac0c6aa0911030150t6db98646ubee210ebeda425b3@mail.gmail.com>
	 <27ff0e30911030221j43aa6353lf73276e6fe1b09ba@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2009 05:34:40 -0500
Message-ID: <9ac0c6aa0911030234xd4d75aia429c84216b671f3@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: deleteDocuments() does not work
From: Michael McCandless <lucene@mikemccandless.com>
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 5:21 AM, Dinh <pcdinh@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Michael,
>
>> Does that mean you no longer see the original problem (changes not
>> being reflected)?
>
> Yes. The deleted documents do not appear in search results any more. I am
> not sure that if they are flushed to disk
> at that time yet but at least there is a sign that they are "deleted". I
> have stopped and started the servlet engine to ensure
> that deleted document is no longer there. I think that Lucene requires th=
e
> previously opened IndexReader be closed before changes
> can be reflected.

Hmmm: closing the old IndexReader shouldn't be necessary in order for
a newly opened IndexReader to see changes.  Something else must've
been fixed at the same time (and I'm glad you got it fixed!).

>> You get the entrySet from the Map, you then iterate over its
>> Map.Entry, then you replace in your original map some entries (the
>> ones that are opened). =A0So, you are modifying a Java collection while
>> iterating over elements from its Set view... I just don't know if
>> that's safe (anyone?)
>
> I am a bit skeptical about my approach. Because the IndexSearchers can be
> used by other threads (requests) at the same time.

That's definitely a problem.  [Shameless plug:] the next rev of Lucene
in Action has a class (SearcherManager) which gracefully handles
reopening in the presence of multiple threads still using the old
IndexSearcher.  It uses the reference counting already builtin to
IndexReader to keep track of how many queries are still using the old
reader.

> Also, because reload() is synchronized so there is a single thread access=
ing
> it only. So I think that there will be no ConcurrentModificationException

Right, but your one thread is both iterating over and modifying the
Map, at once.  That's what concerns me (but it could very well be
safe).

>> Would be good to instrument/debug and confirm
>> that the precise IndexReader that's searching the Directory your
>> IndexWriter just committed to, is in fact reopened.
>
> Do you think that these code are enough
>
> IndexReader oldReader =3D searcher.getIndexReader();
> IndexReader newReader =3D oldReader.reopen(true);
>
> if (newReader !=3D oldReader) {
> =A0 =A0oldReader.close();
> =A0 =A0searcher.close();
> =A0 =A0searchers.put(entry.getKey(), new IndexSearcher(newReader));
> }

Yes, this code looks fine!

Mike

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-help@lucene.apache.org