On Sonntag 05 März 2006 02:36, wenjie zheng wrote:
> a list of email records, first searches in index for
> its docid.
> Once it gets the docid, it will try to remove the doc from the index.
>
> The problem I ran into was:
> 4 out 10 times I ran the program, I got "Lock obtain timed out:
Any reas
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-500?page=comments#action_12368932 ]
Grant Ingersoll commented on LUCENE-500:
OK, but then what is the plan for generating Range Queries in the QueryParser
for those indexes that use DateTools instead? O
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-330?page=comments#action_12368934 ]
Erik Hatcher commented on LUCENE-330:
-
Paul - it is unfortunate that we've let this patch sit for as long as it has.
I've just encountered issues with FilteredQuery mysel
Yonik,
Thanks for your detailed reply. I'm looking at LUCENE-330 but
unfortunately the patches are now stale and I'm not sure which files
are applicable to this scenario. Hopefully Paul can advise.
Thanks,
Erik
On Mar 4, 2006, at 12:59 AM, Yonik Seeley wrote:
This is the first t
Thanks for the hint.
It's my bad! My code is supposed to create a single thread for each user to
delete all his email records from the user's index.
But there was a bug in my code causing it to spawn more than one threads
trying to modify the same index.
I think that's why sometimes it worked but s
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-330?page=comments#action_12368945 ]
Yonik Seeley commented on LUCENE-330:
-
There are multiple related issues here
- introduction and use of SkipFilter, which returns DocNrSkipper instead of a
BitSet.
- cha
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-330?page=comments#action_12368947 ]
Yonik Seeley commented on LUCENE-330:
-
> The patch I referenced should work.
To be more explicit, that patch should work with both BooleanScorer and
BooleanScorer2 becaus
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-330?page=comments#action_12368948 ]
Erik Hatcher commented on LUCENE-330:
-
I manually applied that patch (prior to my first comment actually) as
automatically applying didn't work. I just committed another
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-500?page=comments#action_12368949 ]
Daniel Naber commented on LUCENE-500:
-
I have no plan to fix this, because I consider this a rather exotic feature and
because it should not be difficult to extend QueryPa
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-330?page=comments#action_12368951 ]
paul.elschot commented on LUCENE-330:
-
(Erik:)
> I've just encountered issues with FilteredQuery ...
Could you be more specific?
> Since the code has changed and your pa
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-330?page=comments#action_12368953 ]
Erik Hatcher commented on LUCENE-330:
-
> Could you be more specific?
The new TestFilteredQuery shows the details of the failure, with the stack
trace in my last comment
Erik,
issues.apache.org is not available here at the moment.
This test passes:
public void testBoolean() throws Exception {
BooleanQuery bq = new BooleanQuery();
Query query = new FilteredQuery(new MatchAllDocsQuery(),
new SingleDocTestFilter(0));
bq.add(query, BooleanClause
Hmmm, JIRA is down.
> What am I missing?
Invalid test code.
System.out.println(hits.id(0));
System.out.println(hits.id(1));
assertEquals(0, hits.length());
If hits.length()==0, then don't try to access any of them.
-Yonik
On 3/5/06, Erik Hatcher (JIRA) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
Yes, the SHOULD clauses do pass with an expected and actual result of
2 documents. However, changing both to MUST expects 0 documents yet
the actual number is 2.
Erik
On Mar 5, 2006, at 1:24 PM, Paul Elschot wrote:
Erik,
issues.apache.org is not available here at the moment.
Thi
On Mar 5, 2006, at 5:41 PM, Erik Hatcher wrote:
Yes, the SHOULD clauses do pass with an expected and actual result
of 2 documents. However, changing both to MUST expects 0 documents
yet the actual number is 2.
To clarify, the actual number of 2 documents with both clauses a MUST
is with
15 matches
Mail list logo
