This may be a silly question, and I admit that I haven't looked a the code, but was there a good reason to +1 it in the first place or was that just paranoia to prevent off-by-one errors? If there *was* a valid reason, might it make sense to +1 min(nDocs, maxDoc())?
Erick On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 6:43 AM, Michael McCandless (JIRA) <j...@apache.org>wrote: > > [ > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2119?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel] > > Michael McCandless resolved LUCENE-2119. > ---------------------------------------- > > Resolution: Fixed > > Thanks Paul! > > > If you pass Integer.MAX_VALUE as 2nd param to search(Query, int) you hit > unexpected NegativeArraySizeException > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Key: LUCENE-2119 > > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2119 > > Project: Lucene - Java > > Issue Type: Bug > > Components: Search > > Reporter: Michael McCandless > > Assignee: Michael McCandless > > Priority: Minor > > Fix For: 3.1 > > > > Attachments: LUCENE-2119.patch > > > > > > Note that this is a nonsense value to pass in, since our PQ impl > allocates the array up front. > > It's because PQ takes 1+ this value (which wraps to -1), and attempts to > allocate that. We should bounds check it, and drop PQ size by one in this > case. > > Better, maybe: in IndexSearcher, if that n is ever > maxDoc(), set it to > maxDoc(). > > This trips users up fairly often because they assume our PQ doesn't > statically pre-allocate (a reasonable assumption...). > > -- > 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: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org > >
