Mailing-List: contact dev-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@lucene.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of yseeley@gmail.com designates
 209.85.213.176 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:sender:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:date
         :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type
         :content-transfer-encoding;
        b=NxaLXhaE0XEzvvsmnreYKMHicJYaL0+bPLhCjPmErX9gzS+ih0lAZhCXkcyxnGL1Or
         ltIHOXOw4L8WUD3Z1T5t2B5E/I1qm9lijoP8SiNLNh8pSGRLY4VqlhnCY78+EzwtWNqb
         /aLeIYH8XfUWoVe75oHsGdsKrXicPJ7FimGVw=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: yseeley@gmail.com
Reply-To: yonik@lucidimagination.com
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinGxod5dn2zfbT3fMBRPgg+UaWBCu3LOrTW9fdp@mail.gmail.com>
References: <525940760.11261291036412560.JavaMail.hudson@aegis>
	<AANLkTin2__YHQbUjp9rbm8zqdOWtwZ=7VxsQPh-5HUTv@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTi=Eoos6yAUc7F2uB1a6xv7pjqbWittfNaC7CeUC@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTinau6H_TCzvpZRW_jBh2141uv+85SjvyDKijKnV@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTinGxod5dn2zfbT3fMBRPgg+UaWBCu3LOrTW9fdp@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 14:58:04 -0500
Message-ID: <AANLkTimDUdMp7ipAYi24pjr5hfVHTMiiTAVykDjjqrrM@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Lucene-Solr-tests-only-3.x - Build # 1950 - Failure
From: Yonik Seeley <yonik@lucidimagination.com>
To: Michael McCandless <lucene@mikemccandless.com>
Cc: dev@lucene.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 2:52 PM, Michael McCandless
<lucene@mikemccandless.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 2:20 PM, Yonik Seeley
> <yonik@lucidimagination.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 1:30 PM, Michael McCandless
>> <lucene@mikemccandless.com> wrote:
>>> I ran my while(1) test for 4.5 hours and no failure!
>>>
>>> The failure is odd... because the test had just tested TermRangeFilter
>>> w/ includeUpper and includeLower both true, and it passed (10001
>>> matches).
>>>
>>> Then it runs same query, but changing includeUpper to false, expecting
>>> 10000 matches, but it got only 9999.
>>>
>>> So in both cases it's running identical code except for the one if
>>> that checks for !includeUpper so it's hard to see how it could be
>>> different the 2nd time.
>>>
>>> I think this could be a JRE bug...
>>
>> Or just a test bug?
>> I took a very quick look at the test... and it looks like the range is
>> over a random field - hence there's no reason to think that the upper
>> bound matched exactly one doc? =A0If the upper bound value matched more
>> than one doc, then you would see this failure?
>
> I like that theory!
>
> Meaning, in pulling 10,001 random numbers we got the max value twice.
>
> Though why doesn't the random seed reproduce it?

Excellent question.  Perhaps temporarily lower the range of random
numbers generated to increase the odds of this happening, and then see
if it's reproducible with the same seed (and then maybe it will be
easier to track down why it's not).

-Yonik
http://www.lucidimagination.com

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