Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-solr-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: (qmail 28103 invoked from network); 25 May 2009 17:59:34 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 25 May 2009 17:59:34 -0000 Received: (qmail 98691 invoked by uid 500); 25 May 2009 17:59:47 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-solr-dev-archive@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 98618 invoked by uid 500); 25 May 2009 17:59:47 -0000 Mailing-List: contact solr-dev-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: solr-dev@lucene.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list solr-dev@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 98608 invoked by uid 99); 25 May 2009 17:59:47 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 25 May 2009 17:59:47 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of yseeley@gmail.com designates 74.125.78.25 as permitted sender) Received: from [74.125.78.25] (HELO ey-out-2122.google.com) (74.125.78.25) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 25 May 2009 17:59:37 +0000 Received: by ey-out-2122.google.com with SMTP id 22so806349eye.53 for ; Mon, 25 May 2009 10:59:16 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=14z7WFgZQxhx6O3F9ZK04N7kpFJzaoSd3+rRAL5ifgg=; b=Rz8hjWEWzMqeBlrH/UgoG0kGZ6TBw9M5U1/CCEAL2IsAwc6HcL/g751751BlrReNrl k9V9i5iNWEG+6h+zA5t/pzu+Caz5tUBExldkAN0U5PMm1Au+7X61etnh95XYTn/tz9l9 z8M734/xOm8oTjoWT3Ei6dxBXqlOfHAYssQeo= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=IqXSizUoXHfsEuUGenziGTwrzPQk2arKtEHPeSd2MvBP7dfNoqASykBB/luw4+n4Rh Z6hgK3Ytt9bw6tp7z2m+CiUQIcZ4yb+GV/PCJz1RKij5xY1FKmUgUqk2UEUzfNaVvEFN m1VKKMBkRLI6RgkDB5PzAnABMZGar+VHxllOY= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.20.197 with SMTP id p47mr2154625wep.13.1243274356199; Mon, 25 May 2009 10:59:16 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4A1AD456.6060402@gmail.com> References: <2c138bed0905250935y503a7b84me7c16f22d29c8077@mail.gmail.com> <4A1AD456.6060402@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 13:59:16 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: issue on trunk? From: Yonik Seeley To: solr-dev@lucene.apache.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org Perhaps we should use a factory method on SolrIndexSearcher (that way we can wrap the reader and pass that to the SolrIndexSearcher constructor?) -Yonik On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 1:24 PM, Mark Miller wrote: > Yonik Seeley wrote: >> >> On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 12:35 PM, Peter Wolanin >> wrote: >> >>> >>> Playing with this last night, the error seems to occur for me only >>> with an index created using a solr build from a couple weeks ago >>> that's opened with a new solr build. =A0The error goes away if I issue = a >>> delete query for *:* and re-index the content. >>> >> >> That's really strange... that really shouldn't be the case. =A0Perhaps >> reopen() is acting a little different with the older index? >> Please keep that index around if possible so we can get to the bottom of >> this! >> >> Mark - could it be the changes from delegation to inheritance for >> SolrIndexSearcher? >> super(reader) is called before we get a chance to to wrap the reader >> and make it a SolrIndexReader... >> >> -Yonik >> http://www.lucidimagination.com >> > > It could be. Good point - SolrIndexSearcher gets the plain reader and it > used to get SolrIndexReader. My fault, because I did most of the thinking= on > that pre SolrIndexReader patch. So I guess, Lucene would feed the Solr > DocSet a regular reader instead of SolrIndexReader - no good. But, what I > still don't understand is how that plays into Peter's comment above and m= y > inability to easily replicate the problem. I'll keep digging, but it soun= ds > like I may just revert back to delegation or override getIndexReader to > return the SolrIndexReader - if thats done, we should prob deprecate > getReader. We'd obviously like to fully understand whats happening in any > case though. Until I can tickle the error, I can only guess myself. > > - Mark > > > -- > - Mark > > http://www.lucidimagination.com > > > >