lucene-java-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rene Hackl-Sommer <>
Subject Re: "Deleting" documents without deleting them
Date Tue, 16 Mar 2010 09:45:24 GMT
Hi Daniel,

Unless you have only a few documents and a small index, I don't think 
never calling optimize is going to be a means you should rely upon.

What about if you reindexed the documents you are deleting, adding a 
field <excludeFromSearch> with the value "true"? This would imply that 

1) all fields are stored, so you may retrieve them from the original doc 
and add them to the new one plus the exclusion field
2) or if a lot of fields are only indexed you'd need access to the 
original source. (With limitations it is also possible to reconstruct a 
field from indexed data only, but not generally recommendable)

During search, just add "NOT excludeFromSearch:true" to the query.

If you need to keep track of which versions belong together, you may 
need to think about how you uniquely identify documents, how this 
changes between versions, and if the update dates might be of any help.


Am 16.03.2010 05:20, schrieb Daniel Noll:
> Hi all.
> I'm trying to implement a form of document deletion where the previous
> versions are kept around forever ( a primitive form of versioning) but
> excluded from the search results.
> I notice that after calling IndexWriter.deleteDocuments, even if you
> close and reopen the index, the documents are still accessible using
> document(int) but are returned from queries, which is exactly the
> behaviour I want.  However, if I call optimize() they will obviously
> be obliterated.
> My question is: as long as I never call optimize() -- will the deleted
> documents hang around forever, or will a merge due to adding the new
> documents eventually cause them to be removed?
> If they will be removed then I need some other way to avoid them being
> returned.  I was thinking of actually *not* deleting them, but
> maintaining a giant filter - I could store this filter on disk but
> it's going to be pretty large even if I use a BitSet. :-(   Is there
> any other way to go about it?
> Daniel

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

View raw message