Hi, it could be that you hit some "bug", because of the missing check. Maybe the value overflowed and -1 was then interpreted like Integer.MAX_VALUE. This would make Lucene allocate a huuuuuuuuge array of 2 Giga * 4 bytes = 8 GiB for collecting the search results in a priority queue. And this is very bad memory-wise and expensive from computing power standpoint.
Uwe ----- Uwe Schindler H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen http://www.thetaphi.de eMail: [email protected] > -----Original Message----- > From: Per Steffensen [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2016 9:12 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Using rows=-1 for "give me all" > > On 25/05/16 01:11, Chris Hostetter wrote: > > : > : Back when we used 4.4.0 I believe a query with rows=-1 returned all > > : > matching > > > > : > Nope -- that's never been how rows=-1 behaved. > > : Believe you are wrong. That was how it behaved in 4.4.0 > > > > Nope -- not in a regular search it didn't... > OK, thanks. I am confused now, because we have been using the "feature" > a lot in the past - also for none-grouping queries. I will investigate > more, but cannot promise I will come to a conclusion that is relevant here. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
