Hi all,
I have a client who has what appears to be a corrupted Lucene index. When
they try and openthe index they get:
java.lang.IndexOutOfBoundsException: Index: 9634, Size: 97
at java.util.ArrayList.rangeCheck(ArrayList.java:638)
at java.util.ArrayList.get(ArrayList.java:414)
Hi all,
The company I work for is interested in the implementation of this ticket:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-3371 (Support for a
"SpanAndQuery" / "SpanAllNearQuery") and is willing to pay for it.
If you believe you have the know-how on implementing this and are
interested, plea
e if fsync()
equivalent is called, that the pending I/O operations can't be
cancelled, but I do wonder?
On 28 July 2010 15:04, David Sitsky wrote:
> Hi Mike,
>
> Definitely no OOME (or other critical errors), and if there were, we
> would have terminated the program straight away.
&g
t;
> Mike
>
> On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 8:43 AM, Michael McCandless
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 7:10 PM, David Sitsky wrote:
>>> During processing.. there might be a number of reasons why we need to
>>> shutdown the indexing process, but perhaps
ept if fsync is
> not working correctly and the OS/machine had crashed.
>
> Mike
>
> On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 6:12 AM, David Sitsky wrote:
>> Running CheckIndex -fix fixed both indexes which is a relief. In both
>> cases, it said 1 broken segment containing 1 document de
Running CheckIndex -fix fixed both indexes which is a relief. In both
cases, it said 1 broken segment containing 1 document detected.
So any ideas on what might have caused this in the first place?
On 26 July 2010 16:58, David Sitsky wrote:
> As another data point, this happened on anot
continued to add more documents to
the index after the restart without issue, before doing the final
optimise operation, which is where the above error comes from, like
the trace I showed before.
On 26 July 2010 14:39, David Sitsky wrote:
> Correction - this was with Lucene 2.9.3.
>
>
Correction - this was with Lucene 2.9.3.
On 26 July 2010 14:21, David Sitsky wrote:
> Hi,
>
> A customer has been indexing a very large collection of documents that
> has been running over many days using 2.9.0. During the optimisation
> stage, the following error occurred, an
Hi,
A customer has been indexing a very large collection of documents that
has been running over many days using 2.9.0. During the optimisation
stage, the following error occurred, and now the index can no longer
be opened due to the "missing file". I have been told this index is
on a local RAID
