You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@lucenenet.apache.org by Daniel Wertheim <da...@wertheim.se> on 2010/07/05 18:58:36 UTC
Fwd: Problems with IndexSearcher
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Daniel Wertheim <da...@wertheim.se>
Date: 2010/7/5
Subject: Problems with IndexSearcher
To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
Hi,
Isn't it possible to create an instance of an IndexSearcher for a directory
that is empty? Note, I don't consume it, just create it, still there's an
exception thrown:
"no segments* file found in Lucene.Net.Store.SimpleFSDirectory"
If I create an writer first, everything works fine.
//Daniel
Re: Problems with IndexSearcher
Posted by Daniel Wertheim <da...@wertheim.se>.
Thanks for a detailed answer.
//Daniel
2010/7/6 Nicholas Paldino [.NET/C# MVP] <ca...@caspershouse.com>
> Daniel,
>
> Given the way Lucene works, it's incorrect to shape your app in this
> manner.
>
> Lucene revolves around the index, and the index is managed by the
> IndexWriter. You should have one IndexWriter per index (in your case, it
> would seem you have different indexes in different directories). This is
> open for the life of your app; as your units of work (UOW) are completed,
> you call Commit to commit the changes you have made back to the index.
>
> Now, when you need to perform searches on an index, you call
> GetReader on the IndexWriter to get an IndexReader which you will use to
> prime your searcher. There is no need for notifications of when a reader
> is
> updated. Readers (and searchers) are meant to be lightweight and
> constructed on-the-fly and disposed of when the request is complete.
>
> I know it seems a little paradoxical to have a relationship between
> the reader and the writer where a writer is the factory for the reader.
> Ideally, the abstraction is that you would have an "index" abstraction and
> then you would get readers and writers from that.
>
> That's just not how Lucene works, unfortunately (although I don't
> disagree with the abstraction of having some sort of "Index" abstraction be
> a factory for readers and writers).
>
> - Nick
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daniel Wertheim [mailto:daniel@wertheim.se]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2010 6:18 AM
> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Problems with IndexSearcher
>
> Never heard of the XY-prob before but I'll keep it in mind.
>
> I'm still learning/getting started with Lucene and just got the book
> "Lucene
> in Action" hence my questions....
>
> Scenario:
> There's a unit of work (UOW) that can be adding, removing and updating
> documents in an index. Each UOW can work with multiple IndexWriters, where
> each writer is designated it's own directory to hold indexes. When the UOW
> is "done" changes are committed.
>
> A long side there's one searcher per directory. These searchers are
> longlived and not directly tied to the UOWs, hence I don't know if a writer
> ever have created an index in the directory. Whenever a UOW is committed,
> affected searchers are notified so that they can refresh themselves. But to
> be able to create instances of the searchers I know must ensure that an
> index exists in the directory and not just create them and let them sit
> there waiting to provide their services as a searchers. As a newbie I just
> looked at the "Directory" that is being passed to the Searcher and thought
> "well it exists, hence no problems".....
>
> //Daniel
>
> 2010/7/5 Digy <di...@gmail.com>
>
> > Sorry, this is how lucene works. I can not think of a case where a
> > IndexSearcher is needed on an not-existing-index. Could that be a XY
> > problem? (http://www.perlmonks.org/index.pl?node_id=542341)
> >
> >
> >
> > "The XY problem is when you need to do X, and you think you can use Y to
> do
> > X, so you ask about how to do Y, when what you really should do is state
> > what your X problem is. There may be a Z solution that is even better
> than
> > Y, but nobody can suggest it if X is never mentioned."
> >
> >
> >
> > DIGY.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Daniel Wertheim [mailto:daniel@wertheim.se]
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2010 12:27 AM
> > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Problems with IndexSearcher
> >
> >
> >
> > I get that a searcher needs an index to search, but why not let us create
> > an
> >
> > instance of the searcher which doesn't blow up untill consumed? It takes
> an
> >
> > Directory as dependency, not a writer... The LuceneDirectory could be
> >
> > responsible for initializing the dir so that the searcher doesn't have a
> >
> > direct dependency on the writer. The dir should then notify dependent
> >
> > searcher(s), "hey, the indexed changed"... That way the searcher can be
> >
> > created and Or maybe return null as result of searches when no index
> > exists.
> >
> >
> >
> > //Daniel
> >
> >
> >
> > 2010/7/5 Digy <di...@gmail.com>
> >
> >
> >
> > > No. To make a search, you have to have an index
> >
> > > and Indexes are created with IndexWriter.
> >
> > > (creating an empty index with IndexReader(or IndexSearcher) would be
> > weird)
> >
> > > DIGY
> >
> > >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> >
> > > From: Daniel Wertheim [mailto:daniel@wertheim.se]
> >
> > > Sent: Monday, July 05, 2010 10:03 PM
> >
> > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> >
> > > Subject: Re: Problems with IndexSearcher
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Hi,
> >
> > > Why? Doesn't that create an unclear coupling from the Searcher to the
> >
> > > Writer?
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Does this mean that they should be seen as one "unit"?
> >
> > >
> >
> > > //Daniel
> >
> > >
> >
> > > 2010/7/5 Digy <di...@gmail.com>
> >
> > >
> >
> > > > No. You have to initialize it with an IndexWriter.
> >
> > > > DIGY
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> >
> > > > From: Daniel Wertheim [mailto:daniel@wertheim.se]
> >
> > > > Sent: Monday, July 05, 2010 7:59 PM
> >
> > > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> >
> > > > Subject: Fwd: Problems with IndexSearcher
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> >
> > > > From: Daniel Wertheim <da...@wertheim.se>
> >
> > > > Date: 2010/7/5
> >
> > > > Subject: Problems with IndexSearcher
> >
> > > > To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > Hi,
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > Isn't it possible to create an instance of an IndexSearcher for a
> >
> > > directory
> >
> > > > that is empty? Note, I don't consume it, just create it, still
> there's
> > an
> >
> > > > exception thrown:
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > "no segments* file found in Lucene.Net.Store.SimpleFSDirectory"
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > If I create an writer first, everything works fine.
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > //Daniel
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
RE: Problems with IndexSearcher
Posted by "Nicholas Paldino [.NET/C# MVP]" <ca...@caspershouse.com>.
Daniel,
Given the way Lucene works, it's incorrect to shape your app in this
manner.
Lucene revolves around the index, and the index is managed by the
IndexWriter. You should have one IndexWriter per index (in your case, it
would seem you have different indexes in different directories). This is
open for the life of your app; as your units of work (UOW) are completed,
you call Commit to commit the changes you have made back to the index.
Now, when you need to perform searches on an index, you call
GetReader on the IndexWriter to get an IndexReader which you will use to
prime your searcher. There is no need for notifications of when a reader is
updated. Readers (and searchers) are meant to be lightweight and
constructed on-the-fly and disposed of when the request is complete.
I know it seems a little paradoxical to have a relationship between
the reader and the writer where a writer is the factory for the reader.
Ideally, the abstraction is that you would have an "index" abstraction and
then you would get readers and writers from that.
That's just not how Lucene works, unfortunately (although I don't
disagree with the abstraction of having some sort of "Index" abstraction be
a factory for readers and writers).
- Nick
-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Wertheim [mailto:daniel@wertheim.se]
Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2010 6:18 AM
To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Problems with IndexSearcher
Never heard of the XY-prob before but I'll keep it in mind.
I'm still learning/getting started with Lucene and just got the book "Lucene
in Action" hence my questions....
Scenario:
There's a unit of work (UOW) that can be adding, removing and updating
documents in an index. Each UOW can work with multiple IndexWriters, where
each writer is designated it's own directory to hold indexes. When the UOW
is "done" changes are committed.
A long side there's one searcher per directory. These searchers are
longlived and not directly tied to the UOWs, hence I don't know if a writer
ever have created an index in the directory. Whenever a UOW is committed,
affected searchers are notified so that they can refresh themselves. But to
be able to create instances of the searchers I know must ensure that an
index exists in the directory and not just create them and let them sit
there waiting to provide their services as a searchers. As a newbie I just
looked at the "Directory" that is being passed to the Searcher and thought
"well it exists, hence no problems".....
//Daniel
2010/7/5 Digy <di...@gmail.com>
> Sorry, this is how lucene works. I can not think of a case where a
> IndexSearcher is needed on an not-existing-index. Could that be a XY
> problem? (http://www.perlmonks.org/index.pl?node_id=542341)
>
>
>
> "The XY problem is when you need to do X, and you think you can use Y to
do
> X, so you ask about how to do Y, when what you really should do is state
> what your X problem is. There may be a Z solution that is even better than
> Y, but nobody can suggest it if X is never mentioned."
>
>
>
> DIGY.
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daniel Wertheim [mailto:daniel@wertheim.se]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2010 12:27 AM
> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Problems with IndexSearcher
>
>
>
> I get that a searcher needs an index to search, but why not let us create
> an
>
> instance of the searcher which doesn't blow up untill consumed? It takes
an
>
> Directory as dependency, not a writer... The LuceneDirectory could be
>
> responsible for initializing the dir so that the searcher doesn't have a
>
> direct dependency on the writer. The dir should then notify dependent
>
> searcher(s), "hey, the indexed changed"... That way the searcher can be
>
> created and Or maybe return null as result of searches when no index
> exists.
>
>
>
> //Daniel
>
>
>
> 2010/7/5 Digy <di...@gmail.com>
>
>
>
> > No. To make a search, you have to have an index
>
> > and Indexes are created with IndexWriter.
>
> > (creating an empty index with IndexReader(or IndexSearcher) would be
> weird)
>
> > DIGY
>
> >
>
> > -----Original Message-----
>
> > From: Daniel Wertheim [mailto:daniel@wertheim.se]
>
> > Sent: Monday, July 05, 2010 10:03 PM
>
> > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
>
> > Subject: Re: Problems with IndexSearcher
>
> >
>
> > Hi,
>
> > Why? Doesn't that create an unclear coupling from the Searcher to the
>
> > Writer?
>
> >
>
> > Does this mean that they should be seen as one "unit"?
>
> >
>
> > //Daniel
>
> >
>
> > 2010/7/5 Digy <di...@gmail.com>
>
> >
>
> > > No. You have to initialize it with an IndexWriter.
>
> > > DIGY
>
> > >
>
> > > -----Original Message-----
>
> > > From: Daniel Wertheim [mailto:daniel@wertheim.se]
>
> > > Sent: Monday, July 05, 2010 7:59 PM
>
> > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
>
> > > Subject: Fwd: Problems with IndexSearcher
>
> > >
>
> > > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>
> > > From: Daniel Wertheim <da...@wertheim.se>
>
> > > Date: 2010/7/5
>
> > > Subject: Problems with IndexSearcher
>
> > > To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > > Hi,
>
> > >
>
> > > Isn't it possible to create an instance of an IndexSearcher for a
>
> > directory
>
> > > that is empty? Note, I don't consume it, just create it, still there's
> an
>
> > > exception thrown:
>
> > >
>
> > > "no segments* file found in Lucene.Net.Store.SimpleFSDirectory"
>
> > >
>
> > > If I create an writer first, everything works fine.
>
> > >
>
> > > //Daniel
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> >
>
>
Re: Problems with IndexSearcher
Posted by Daniel Wertheim <da...@wertheim.se>.
Never heard of the XY-prob before but I'll keep it in mind.
I'm still learning/getting started with Lucene and just got the book "Lucene
in Action" hence my questions....
Scenario:
There's a unit of work (UOW) that can be adding, removing and updating
documents in an index. Each UOW can work with multiple IndexWriters, where
each writer is designated it's own directory to hold indexes. When the UOW
is "done" changes are committed.
A long side there's one searcher per directory. These searchers are
longlived and not directly tied to the UOWs, hence I don't know if a writer
ever have created an index in the directory. Whenever a UOW is committed,
affected searchers are notified so that they can refresh themselves. But to
be able to create instances of the searchers I know must ensure that an
index exists in the directory and not just create them and let them sit
there waiting to provide their services as a searchers. As a newbie I just
looked at the "Directory" that is being passed to the Searcher and thought
"well it exists, hence no problems".....
//Daniel
2010/7/5 Digy <di...@gmail.com>
> Sorry, this is how lucene works. I can not think of a case where a
> IndexSearcher is needed on an not-existing-index. Could that be a XY
> problem? (http://www.perlmonks.org/index.pl?node_id=542341)
>
>
>
> "The XY problem is when you need to do X, and you think you can use Y to do
> X, so you ask about how to do Y, when what you really should do is state
> what your X problem is. There may be a Z solution that is even better than
> Y, but nobody can suggest it if X is never mentioned."
>
>
>
> DIGY.
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daniel Wertheim [mailto:daniel@wertheim.se]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2010 12:27 AM
> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Problems with IndexSearcher
>
>
>
> I get that a searcher needs an index to search, but why not let us create
> an
>
> instance of the searcher which doesn't blow up untill consumed? It takes an
>
> Directory as dependency, not a writer... The LuceneDirectory could be
>
> responsible for initializing the dir so that the searcher doesn't have a
>
> direct dependency on the writer. The dir should then notify dependent
>
> searcher(s), "hey, the indexed changed"... That way the searcher can be
>
> created and Or maybe return null as result of searches when no index
> exists.
>
>
>
> //Daniel
>
>
>
> 2010/7/5 Digy <di...@gmail.com>
>
>
>
> > No. To make a search, you have to have an index
>
> > and Indexes are created with IndexWriter.
>
> > (creating an empty index with IndexReader(or IndexSearcher) would be
> weird)
>
> > DIGY
>
> >
>
> > -----Original Message-----
>
> > From: Daniel Wertheim [mailto:daniel@wertheim.se]
>
> > Sent: Monday, July 05, 2010 10:03 PM
>
> > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
>
> > Subject: Re: Problems with IndexSearcher
>
> >
>
> > Hi,
>
> > Why? Doesn't that create an unclear coupling from the Searcher to the
>
> > Writer?
>
> >
>
> > Does this mean that they should be seen as one "unit"?
>
> >
>
> > //Daniel
>
> >
>
> > 2010/7/5 Digy <di...@gmail.com>
>
> >
>
> > > No. You have to initialize it with an IndexWriter.
>
> > > DIGY
>
> > >
>
> > > -----Original Message-----
>
> > > From: Daniel Wertheim [mailto:daniel@wertheim.se]
>
> > > Sent: Monday, July 05, 2010 7:59 PM
>
> > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
>
> > > Subject: Fwd: Problems with IndexSearcher
>
> > >
>
> > > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>
> > > From: Daniel Wertheim <da...@wertheim.se>
>
> > > Date: 2010/7/5
>
> > > Subject: Problems with IndexSearcher
>
> > > To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > > Hi,
>
> > >
>
> > > Isn't it possible to create an instance of an IndexSearcher for a
>
> > directory
>
> > > that is empty? Note, I don't consume it, just create it, still there's
> an
>
> > > exception thrown:
>
> > >
>
> > > "no segments* file found in Lucene.Net.Store.SimpleFSDirectory"
>
> > >
>
> > > If I create an writer first, everything works fine.
>
> > >
>
> > > //Daniel
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> >
>
>
RE: Problems with IndexSearcher
Posted by Digy <di...@gmail.com>.
Sorry, this is how lucene works. I can not think of a case where a
IndexSearcher is needed on an not-existing-index. Could that be a XY
problem? (http://www.perlmonks.org/index.pl?node_id=542341)
"The XY problem is when you need to do X, and you think you can use Y to do
X, so you ask about how to do Y, when what you really should do is state
what your X problem is. There may be a Z solution that is even better than
Y, but nobody can suggest it if X is never mentioned."
DIGY.
-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Wertheim [mailto:daniel@wertheim.se]
Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2010 12:27 AM
To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Problems with IndexSearcher
I get that a searcher needs an index to search, but why not let us create an
instance of the searcher which doesn't blow up untill consumed? It takes an
Directory as dependency, not a writer... The LuceneDirectory could be
responsible for initializing the dir so that the searcher doesn't have a
direct dependency on the writer. The dir should then notify dependent
searcher(s), "hey, the indexed changed"... That way the searcher can be
created and Or maybe return null as result of searches when no index exists.
//Daniel
2010/7/5 Digy <di...@gmail.com>
> No. To make a search, you have to have an index
> and Indexes are created with IndexWriter.
> (creating an empty index with IndexReader(or IndexSearcher) would be
weird)
> DIGY
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daniel Wertheim [mailto:daniel@wertheim.se]
> Sent: Monday, July 05, 2010 10:03 PM
> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Problems with IndexSearcher
>
> Hi,
> Why? Doesn't that create an unclear coupling from the Searcher to the
> Writer?
>
> Does this mean that they should be seen as one "unit"?
>
> //Daniel
>
> 2010/7/5 Digy <di...@gmail.com>
>
> > No. You have to initialize it with an IndexWriter.
> > DIGY
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Daniel Wertheim [mailto:daniel@wertheim.se]
> > Sent: Monday, July 05, 2010 7:59 PM
> > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > Subject: Fwd: Problems with IndexSearcher
> >
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > From: Daniel Wertheim <da...@wertheim.se>
> > Date: 2010/7/5
> > Subject: Problems with IndexSearcher
> > To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> >
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Isn't it possible to create an instance of an IndexSearcher for a
> directory
> > that is empty? Note, I don't consume it, just create it, still there's
an
> > exception thrown:
> >
> > "no segments* file found in Lucene.Net.Store.SimpleFSDirectory"
> >
> > If I create an writer first, everything works fine.
> >
> > //Daniel
> >
> >
>
>
Re: Problems with IndexSearcher
Posted by Daniel Wertheim <da...@wertheim.se>.
I get that a searcher needs an index to search, but why not let us create an
instance of the searcher which doesn't blow up untill consumed? It takes an
Directory as dependency, not a writer... The LuceneDirectory could be
responsible for initializing the dir so that the searcher doesn't have a
direct dependency on the writer. The dir should then notify dependent
searcher(s), "hey, the indexed changed"... That way the searcher can be
created and Or maybe return null as result of searches when no index exists.
//Daniel
2010/7/5 Digy <di...@gmail.com>
> No. To make a search, you have to have an index
> and Indexes are created with IndexWriter.
> (creating an empty index with IndexReader(or IndexSearcher) would be weird)
> DIGY
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daniel Wertheim [mailto:daniel@wertheim.se]
> Sent: Monday, July 05, 2010 10:03 PM
> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Problems with IndexSearcher
>
> Hi,
> Why? Doesn't that create an unclear coupling from the Searcher to the
> Writer?
>
> Does this mean that they should be seen as one "unit"?
>
> //Daniel
>
> 2010/7/5 Digy <di...@gmail.com>
>
> > No. You have to initialize it with an IndexWriter.
> > DIGY
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Daniel Wertheim [mailto:daniel@wertheim.se]
> > Sent: Monday, July 05, 2010 7:59 PM
> > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > Subject: Fwd: Problems with IndexSearcher
> >
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > From: Daniel Wertheim <da...@wertheim.se>
> > Date: 2010/7/5
> > Subject: Problems with IndexSearcher
> > To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> >
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Isn't it possible to create an instance of an IndexSearcher for a
> directory
> > that is empty? Note, I don't consume it, just create it, still there's an
> > exception thrown:
> >
> > "no segments* file found in Lucene.Net.Store.SimpleFSDirectory"
> >
> > If I create an writer first, everything works fine.
> >
> > //Daniel
> >
> >
>
>
RE: Problems with IndexSearcher
Posted by Digy <di...@gmail.com>.
No. To make a search, you have to have an index
and Indexes are created with IndexWriter.
(creating an empty index with IndexReader(or IndexSearcher) would be weird)
DIGY
-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Wertheim [mailto:daniel@wertheim.se]
Sent: Monday, July 05, 2010 10:03 PM
To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Problems with IndexSearcher
Hi,
Why? Doesn't that create an unclear coupling from the Searcher to the
Writer?
Does this mean that they should be seen as one "unit"?
//Daniel
2010/7/5 Digy <di...@gmail.com>
> No. You have to initialize it with an IndexWriter.
> DIGY
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daniel Wertheim [mailto:daniel@wertheim.se]
> Sent: Monday, July 05, 2010 7:59 PM
> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Fwd: Problems with IndexSearcher
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Daniel Wertheim <da...@wertheim.se>
> Date: 2010/7/5
> Subject: Problems with IndexSearcher
> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
>
>
> Hi,
>
> Isn't it possible to create an instance of an IndexSearcher for a
directory
> that is empty? Note, I don't consume it, just create it, still there's an
> exception thrown:
>
> "no segments* file found in Lucene.Net.Store.SimpleFSDirectory"
>
> If I create an writer first, everything works fine.
>
> //Daniel
>
>
Re: Problems with IndexSearcher
Posted by Daniel Wertheim <da...@wertheim.se>.
Hi,
Why? Doesn't that create an unclear coupling from the Searcher to the
Writer?
Does this mean that they should be seen as one "unit"?
//Daniel
2010/7/5 Digy <di...@gmail.com>
> No. You have to initialize it with an IndexWriter.
> DIGY
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daniel Wertheim [mailto:daniel@wertheim.se]
> Sent: Monday, July 05, 2010 7:59 PM
> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Fwd: Problems with IndexSearcher
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Daniel Wertheim <da...@wertheim.se>
> Date: 2010/7/5
> Subject: Problems with IndexSearcher
> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
>
>
> Hi,
>
> Isn't it possible to create an instance of an IndexSearcher for a directory
> that is empty? Note, I don't consume it, just create it, still there's an
> exception thrown:
>
> "no segments* file found in Lucene.Net.Store.SimpleFSDirectory"
>
> If I create an writer first, everything works fine.
>
> //Daniel
>
>
RE: Problems with IndexSearcher
Posted by Digy <di...@gmail.com>.
No. You have to initialize it with an IndexWriter.
DIGY
-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Wertheim [mailto:daniel@wertheim.se]
Sent: Monday, July 05, 2010 7:59 PM
To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Fwd: Problems with IndexSearcher
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Daniel Wertheim <da...@wertheim.se>
Date: 2010/7/5
Subject: Problems with IndexSearcher
To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
Hi,
Isn't it possible to create an instance of an IndexSearcher for a directory
that is empty? Note, I don't consume it, just create it, still there's an
exception thrown:
"no segments* file found in Lucene.Net.Store.SimpleFSDirectory"
If I create an writer first, everything works fine.
//Daniel