I am getting even more confused. I luckily found a copy of one of the
corrupted test indices that i had made on 4/28/08...lucky as its the
only one I have ever made :) It doesn't have the problem. This is very
interesting to me, because the other site that has the problem has been
in action for mon
Mark Miller wrote:
MB: Ah, thanks for clearing the version stuff up...I just assumed that
trunk last week was pretty close to 2.3.1. I am def trunk last thurs or
fri. Perhaps the problem is after 2.3.1, and perhaps the problem is only
with me.
OK, thanks for verifying. I'll go ahead and publis
Sorry,
Also, win 2003 java is sun
AIX is obviously IBM.
On Mon, 2008-05-05 at 18:07 -0400, Michael McCandless wrote:
> Mark,
>
> Which exact version of the JRE are you using?
>
> Mike
>
> Mark Miller wrote:
> > On Mon, 2008-05-05 at 17:26 -0400, Michael McCandless wrote:
> >> Actually that sta
MB: Ah, thanks for clearing the version stuff up...I just assumed that
trunk last week was pretty close to 2.3.1. I am def trunk last thurs or
fri. Perhaps the problem is after 2.3.1, and perhaps the problem is only
with me.
MM: FYI- I upgraded a really old test install (hasnt been touched by a
ne
Yeah, it's probably confusing, because we currently commit patches to
two branches: the trunk (/repos/asf/lucene/java/trunk) and the 2.3
branch (/repos/asf/lucene/java/branches/lucene_2_3).
So if you checked out from the trunk, then this is not the 2.3.2
version. The 2.3.2 release candidate is
Mark,
Which exact version of the JRE are you using?
Mike
Mark Miller wrote:
On Mon, 2008-05-05 at 17:26 -0400, Michael McCandless wrote:
Actually that stack trace looks like it's from trunk, not from 2.3.2
(pre)? OK, I think you said it's from "post 2.3 trunk".
Right...the Lucene that sho
Man, I have even confused myself on these versions at this point. Let me
start over.
I am having the problem with a version of lucene that was the trunk late
last week. Which pretty much means 2.3.2.
I'd hate to hold up the release if the problem was only me though. I am
trying to work through it
On Mon, 2008-05-05 at 17:26 -0400, Michael McCandless wrote:
> Actually that stack trace looks like it's from trunk, not from 2.3.2
> (pre)? OK, I think you said it's from "post 2.3 trunk".
Right...the Lucene that showed the problem was build from a trunk grab
late last week. One of the problem
If that is the case then I will go ahead and publish the 2.3.2 release?
Have you seen this on 2.3.x, Mark?
-Michael
Michael McCandless wrote:
Actually that stack trace looks like it's from trunk, not from
2.3.2(pre)? OK, I think you said it's from "post 2.3 trunk".
Another question: is au
Also, if you can run your tests with assertions enabled, it could
catch something...
Mike
Mark Miller wrote:
On Mon, 2008-05-05 at 16:32 -0400, Michael McCandless wrote:
Hi Mark,
Not good!
Can you describe how this index was created? Did you use multiple
threads on one IndexWriter? Mul
Actually that stack trace looks like it's from trunk, not from 2.3.2
(pre)? OK, I think you said it's from "post 2.3 trunk".
Another question: is autoCommit false or true?
More responses below:
Mark Miller wrote:
On Mon, 2008-05-05 at 16:32 -0400, Michael McCandless wrote:
Hi Mark,
Not g
On Mon, 2008-05-05 at 16:32 -0400, Michael McCandless wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
> Not good!
>
> Can you describe how this index was created? Did you use multiple
> threads on one IndexWriter? Multiple sessions of IndexWriter
> appending to the index? addIndexes*? Is the index copied from one
Hi Mark,
Not good!
Can you describe how this index was created? Did you use multiple
threads on one IndexWriter? Multiple sessions of IndexWriter
appending to the index? addIndexes*? Is the index copied from one
place to another after being written and before being searched?
If you
I thought I remember that thread but couldn't remember the details.
I am def getting a similar error, except that I seem to be way more out
of bounds than you.
I actually get it using an FSDirectory though...and I have gotten it
twice already...both upgrades I tried...first on a test machine and
hmm, if I am not wrong, it looks awfully similar to the Exception we have seen
and concluded it is some black magic with corrupt memory chip or waht-not, but
the fact we are not alone makes me wonder now... Subject of this thread was
"Strange Exception"... we were able to use this very same inde
Yeah, its pretty close to 2.3.2, but I think from last week mabye.
I finally have one of the stack traces (this comes on the tail complete
laptop failure so I am scrambling here)
java.lang.IndexOutOfBoundsException: Index: 97, Size: 43
at java.util.ArrayList.RangeCheck(ArrayList.java:572
coincidence or it is from 2.3.2 ?
env:
lucene 2.3.2
jdk1.6.0_06 & jdk1.5.0_15
QueryString:
illeg^30.820824 technolog^22.290413 transfer^33.307804
Error: java.lang.ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException:
132704java.lang.ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException: 132704
at
org.apache.lucene.search.BooleanScorer2$
Last message had a type...I reversed line numbers fields...trying
again:
Any recent changes that would expose index corruption?
I am getting two new errors when trying to search:
nullpointer fieldsreaders line 185
indexoutofbounds on fieldinfo line 260
I am kind of screwed, because reindex
Any recent changes that would expose index corruption?
I am getting two new errors when trying to search:
nullpointer fieldsreaders line 260
indexoutofbounds on fieldinfo line 185
I am kind of screwed, because reindexing fixes this, but I cant reindex!
Any ideas?
--
Hi!
Unfortunately the search method in ParallelMultiSearcher which is able to take
an HitCollector isn't running in parallel and there' even an issue regarding
this (LUCENE-990) with zero watchers or votes :-\
So this isn't something that's likely to be done in near future, is it?
And question
Please review:
http://wiki.apache.org/lucene-java/LuceneFAQ
I suspect your question is answered as:
How do I make sure that a match in a document title has greater
weight than than a match in a document body?
-h
--
Hira, N.
Well, it all depends upon what you mean by problem. Lucene is not returning
things in random order, it's returning things in relevance order. There is
a lot of discussion about scoring both on the Wiki and in the mail archive
if you want to affect the return order.
Alternatively, you can sort your
Hi,
I am creating a keyword based search engine. Now I am able to search the
required data. Now, I notice that the data coming is in random order. Is there
any way I can call particular record 1st. I have an example. Suppose I m
working on search of Book content, writer, publication. Now if I en
23 matches
Mail list logo
