This is definitely a confusing error condition. If we can add more
information without creating an undue burden for the indexer it would
be nice, but I think this will be very challenging here since the
exception is thrown at a low level in the code where there might not
be a lot of useful info (ie
Dear Michael,
Looking deeper into this. I think we overflowed a term frequency field.
Looking in some statistics, in a previous release we had 1,288,526,281
of a certain field, this would be larger now. Each of these would have
had a limited set of values. But crucially nearly all of them woul
Dear Michael,
Thank you for your help.
We don't use custom term frequencies (I just double checked with a code
search).
We also always merge down to one segment (historical but also we index
once and then there are no changes for a week to a month and then we
reindex every document from scrat
It seems as if the term frequency for some term exceeded the maximum.
This can happen if you supplied custom term frequencies eg with
https://lucene.apache.org/core/9_10_0/core/org/apache/lucene/analysis/tokenattributes/TermFrequencyAttribute.html?is-external=true
. The behavior didn't change since
Dear Lucene community,
This morning I found this exception in our logs. This was the first time
we indexed this data with lucene 9.10. Before we were still on the
lucene 8.x branch. between the last indexing with 8 and this one with
9.10 we have a bit more data so it could be something else th
