I'm particularly thinking its something like http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=5091921
We tried to add workarounds to lucene to dodge problems from this, but really a newer unaffected version would be safer. On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 1:47 PM, Robert Muir <rcm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 1:30 PM, Tom Burton-West <tburt...@umich.edu>wrote: > >> java.version=1.6.0_16 > > > Tom can you use a newer java version for this? That's pretty old, and > seeing such a crazy field number worries me that its some jvm bug. > > you could even try to run the checkindex itself with a newer java, just in > case the index is fine (it might not be) > >
