lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Mark Miller (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1771) Using explain may double ram reqs for fieldcaches when using ValueSourceQuery/CustomScoreQuery or for ConstantScoreQuerys that use a caching Filter.
Date Wed, 05 Aug 2009 15:07:14 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1771?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12739550#action_12739550
] 

Mark Miller commented on LUCENE-1771:
-------------------------------------

bq. I think a hard break is better than a subtle and rather shocking "my explain method just
consumed XXX MB" failure.

Yeah, I agreed :) But shouldn't we just make it a compile time error? What if explain is part
of their current apps code? Should we wait to blow up on them?

> Using explain may double ram reqs for fieldcaches when using ValueSourceQuery/CustomScoreQuery
or for ConstantScoreQuerys that use a caching Filter.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: LUCENE-1771
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1771
>             Project: Lucene - Java
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: Search
>            Reporter: Mark Miller
>            Assignee: Mark Miller
>             Fix For: 2.9
>
>         Attachments: LUCENE-1771.patch, LUCENE-1771.patch, LUCENE-1771.patch, LUCENE-1771.patch
>
>


-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org


Mime
View raw message