[Dovecot] dovecot fts_lucene indexes not being updated

[Joe Beaubien]

See answers inline.

I just want to add that i also tried the parameter "fts_index_timeout = 10"
in the plugin section. Unfortunately the logs never showed me any indexing
taking place. I also tried "fts_index_timeout = 10s" in case i had the
wrong syntax.

I also tried "doveadm fts rescan -u my_user". The command returned
instantly and nothing appeared in the logs to indicate that a rescan
happened.

Thanks,

-Joe



On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 2:21 PM, Timo Sirainen <tss at iki.fi> wrote:

> On Sat, 2012-05-19 at 13:19 -0400, Joe Beaubien wrote:
>
> > I have a dovecot 2.1.6 setup with fts_lucene.
> >
> > The lucene indexes get created/updated fine when I do a manual search
> thru
> > telnet.
>
> So you run SEARCH TEXT or SEARCH BODY?
>


Yes, with telnet i send a SEARCH TEXT command: 4 search text "test"



>
> > However, if I run a webapp that uses the php::imap_search function, the
> > index never gets created/updated.
>
> What IMAP command is this search sending? You could check by e.g.
> running rawlog: http://wiki2.dovecot.org/Debugging/Rawlog



Ok, I enabled rawlog and noticed the code was only sending "SEARCH FROM". I
modified it to also send a "SEARCH TEXT" and it triggered the fts index
update.

However, in my use case, that's not the search that needs to be done. The
search needed is "SEARCH FROM". It's not practical (or efficient I imagine)
to send a "SEARCH TEXT" for every folder before sending a "SEARCH FROM",
just to be sure the indexes are up-to-date.

If i could just do an update of the entire account (all folders) right
after I download new emails, that would be the least painful (I think). I
thought "fts_index_timeout" or "doveadm fts rescan -u my_user" would help
me achieve this, but those 2 options never seem to trigger an update on the
fts indexes. Any idea if I did something wrong there?




>
> > I run indo the same problem with
> > thunderbird and full-body search.
>
> Thunderbird probably isn't using IMAP SEARCH at all, but using its own
> local indexes. Although this is configurable I think.
>

You are right, let's forget about thunderbird.