lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Simon Willnauer <simon.willna...@googlemail.com>
Subject Re: A report for "Not so important (but still is a) bug"
Date Sun, 08 Nov 2009 16:18:08 GMT
dude, will we have 2.9.2? :)

simon

On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 4:14 PM, Michael McCandless
<lucene@mikemccandless.com> wrote:
> We should fix this; I'll open an issue & dig.
>
> Somehow SegmentInfo.files() is being buggy, claiming _0.prx is a file
> belonging to the segment, when it clearly isn't.
>
> BTW we can't hold 2.9.1, since it's now "out" (as of yesterday) :)
>
> Mike
>
> On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 8:58 AM, Shai Erera <serera@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> I wanted to check something and wrote this very simple program, which
>> surprisingly failed because of a FileNotFound exception:
>>
>>       Directory dir = new RAMDirectory();
>>       IndexWriter writer = new IndexWriter(dir, new SimpleAnalyzer(),
>> MaxFieldLength.UNLIMITED);
>>       writer.setInfoStream(System.out);
>>       writer.addDocument(new Document());
>>       writer.commit();
>>       writer.close();
>>
>> It fails with the exception:
>>
>> Exception in thread "main" java.io.FileNotFoundException: _0.prx
>>     at
>> org.apache.lucene.store.RAMDirectory.fileLength(RAMDirectory.java:149)
>>     at
>> org.apache.lucene.index.DocumentsWriter.segmentSize(DocumentsWriter.java:1150)
>>     at
>> org.apache.lucene.index.DocumentsWriter.flush(DocumentsWriter.java:587)
>>     at
>> org.apache.lucene.index.IndexWriter.doFlushInternal(IndexWriter.java:3572)
>>     at org.apache.lucene.index.IndexWriter.doFlush(IndexWriter.java:3483)
>>     at org.apache.lucene.index.IndexWriter.flush(IndexWriter.java:3474)
>>     at
>> org.apache.lucene.index.IndexWriter.addDocument(IndexWriter.java:1940)
>>     at
>> org.apache.lucene.index.IndexWriter.addDocument(IndexWriter.java:1894)
>>
>> This happens on the latest code from trunk (and validated also against 2.4).
>> Seems like it's there forever. This only happens when I set infoStream,
>> because as part of the logging we compute the segment size. _0.prx is not
>> found because I didn't add any terms to the index. If I don't set the
>> infoStream, or add terms to the index, this exception is not thrown.
>>
>> Like I wrote in the subject, I don't think it's that important (for example
>> to hold off 2.9.1), but still a bug. Not a very important bug even, but I
>> can't get it out of my head that it's still a bug :)
>>
>> Can be fixed by making sure segmentSize() does not thrown any FNF exception
>> for missing .prx? Does not sound too safe to me. Maybe we just remember this
>> and tell people (like me) "even in silly tests, add a term to the document"?
>>
>> Shai.
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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