On Sun, Dec 06, 2009 at 05:31:53PM -0500, Erick Erickson wrote: > 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?
IIRC, this implementation of the priority queue algo leaves open slot 0 to simplify internal calculations. It was that way when I ported 1.4.3, and I doubt that's changed. > If there *was* a valid reason, might it make sense to > +1 min(nDocs, maxDoc())? I think the patch is fine. It's really only needed to provide a more accurate error message in the event somebody specifies that they want Integer.MAX_VALUE elements, not realizing that they will be allocated up front rather than lazily -- they'll get an OOME rather than a NegativeArraySizeException. Cheers, Marvin Humphrey --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
