[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1859?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12748071#action_12748071
]
Tim Smith commented on LUCENE-1859:
-----------------------------------
b1. The worst-case scenario seems kind of theoretical
100% agree, but even if one extremely large token gets added to the stream (and
possibly dropped prior to indexing), the char[] grows without ever shrinking
back (so it can result in memory usage growing if "bad" content is thrown in
(and people have no shortage of bad content)
bq. Is a priority of "major" justified?
major is just the default priority (feel free to change)
bq. I assume that, based on this report, TermAttributeImpl never gets reset or
discarded/recreated over the course of an indexing session?
using reusable TokenStream will never cause the buffer to be nulled (as far as
i can tell) for the lifetime of the thread (please correct me if i'm wrong on
this)
i would argue for a semi-large value for MAX_BUFFER_SIZE (potentially allowing
this to be statically updated), just as a means to bound the max memory used
here
currently, the memory use is bounded by Integer.MAX_VALUE (which is really big)
If someone feeds a large text document with no spaces or other delimiting
characters, a "non-intelligent" tokenizer would treat this a 1 big token (and
grow the char[] accordingly)
> TermAttributeImpl's buffer will never "shrink" if it grows too big
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-1859
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1859
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Analysis
> Affects Versions: 2.9
> Reporter: Tim Smith
>
> This was also an issue with Token previously as well
> If a TermAttributeImpl is populated with a very long buffer, it will never be
> able to reclaim this memory
> Obviously, it can be argued that Tokenizer's should never emit "large"
> tokens, however it seems that the TermAttributeImpl should have a reasonable
> static "MAX_BUFFER_SIZE" such that if the term buffer grows bigger than this,
> it will shrink back down to this size once the next token smaller than
> MAX_BUFFER_SIZE is set
> I don't think i have actually encountered issues with this yet, however it
> seems like if you have multiple indexing threads, you could end up with a
> char[Integer.MAX_VALUE] per thread (in the very worst case scenario)
> perhaps growTermBuffer should have the logic to shrink if the buffer is
> currently larger than MAX_BUFFER_SIZE and it needs less than MAX_BUFFER_SIZE
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
