Could this perhaps have anything to do with the changes to DocIdSetIterator?
Glancing at the default implementation of advance makes me wince a bit:
public int advance(int target) throws IOException {
while (nextDoc() < target) {}
return doc;
}
IMO, this is a back-compatibility anti-pattern. It would be better to
throw an exception then quietly slow down some of the users queries by
an order of magnitude. Actually, I don't think I would count it as
back compatible because of that.
-Yonik
http://www.lucidimagination.com
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 2:54 PM, Michael
McCandless<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 2:30 PM, eks dev<[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Weird. Have you run CheckIndex?
>> nope, I guess it brings nothing: two times built index; Bug provoked by
>> changing one parameter that controls only search caused it => no corrupt
>> index?
>>
>> You think we should give it a try? Hell, why not :)
>
> Yah it's quite a long shot but if it is corrupt, we'll be kicking
> ourselves about 30 emails from now...
>
>> What do you mean by "Can you do a binary search to locate the term(s) that's
>> causing it?"
>>
>> I know exactly which term combination causes it, last Query.toString() I
>> have sent.... if I simplify Query by dropping one term with its expansions,
>> it runs fine... or if I replace any of these terms it works fine,We tried
>> with higer freq. terms, lower... everything fine... bizzar
>
> Right I meant try to whittle down the query that tickles the infinite
> loop. Sounds like any whittling causes the issue to scurry away.
>
> If I make a patch that adds verbosity to what BS is doing, can you run
> it & post the output?
>
> Mike
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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]
