[email protected]
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Instantiating a RAMDirectory from a mutating directory

Subject: Re: Instantiating a RAMDirectory from a mutating directory
From: Michael McCandless
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2009 06:19:21 -0500

This is an interesting challenge!  Responses below...

Kieran Topping wrote:


I would like to be able to instantiate a RAMDirectory from a directory that an IndexWriter in another process might currently be modifying.

Ideally, I would like to do this without any synchronizing or locking. Kind-of like the way in which an IndexReader can open an index in a directory, even if it's currently being modified by an IndexWriter.

However, simply calling:
RAMDirectory rd = new RAMDirectory("/path/to/index");
Will not work. It will periodically fail with a FileNotFoundException. It's fairly obvious why this happens: Directory.copy() gets a list of the files it needs to copy, and then copies them into the RAMDirectory instance one-by-one. If, in the meantime, the IndexWriter deletes one of these files, a FileNotFoundException occurs.

One thought that I had was that I would take advantage of the fact that it's possible to open an IndexReader on the mutating directory, and then use the "addIndexes()" method, as follows:

 // 1. create RAMDirectory.
 RAMDirectory ramDirectory = new RAMDirectory();
 // 2. create an index in the RAMDirectory.
IndexWriter writer = new IndexWriter(ramDirectory, null/ *analyzer*/, true /*create*/) ;
 // 3. open the (possibly mutating) source index.
 IndexReader reader = IndexReader.open("/path/to/index");
 // 4. copy the source index into the RAMDirectory index.
 writer.addIndexes(new IndexReader [] {reader});

However ... there is a fairly unambiguous warning in IndexWriter.addIndexes()'s documentation:

>> NOTE: the index in each Directory must not be changed (opened by a writer) while this method is running. This method does not acquire a write lock in each input Directory, so it is up to the caller to enforce this.

I'm slightly confused by this warning though, as IndexReader's documentation implies that it is OK to open an IndexReader in this fashion.

Actually, I believe that NOTE only applies to the two addIndexes methods that take Directory. So I think this approach will work fine in general. Have you hit any problems in testing it? I'll update the javadocs.

The one big downside to this approach is performance: it's a rather slow way to copy an index into RAM. But maybe your indexes are small enough that this doesn't matter.

I'm wondering whether anyone knows the internals of IndexWriter.addIndexes() well enough to know whether my proposed solution will work reliably?

Or, indeed, whether there might be another way of instantiating a RAMDirectory from a directory which might currently be being modified by an IndexWriter?

If you could communicate w/ the separate process doing the writing, you could use SnapshotDeletionPolicy (in the writer process) to protect a particular point-in-time commit. This is exactly how a hot backup of a Lucene index is done; you would have to then communicate the filenames that IndexCommit (in the writer process) exposes over to your 2nd reader process, and copy those files, and then release the snapshot back in the writer process.

Alternatively, you could simply use SegmentInfos class (NOTE: it's package private, so you'd need code in org.apache.lucene.index package, and these APIs can change release-to-release) to open the current commit, and then simply copy the files directly (this is the API that IndexReader.open does). To do this, you should subclass the FindSegmentsFile class, and override run() to open all referenced files, and probably return these open file handles to the code that actually does the copying. You'd need to take some care to handle a FileNotFoundException (meaning you need to retry on the next segments file), to close any files you had succeeded in opening, else you'll leak file descriptors...


To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>