lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Uwe Schindler" <...@thetaphi.de>
Subject RE: Using rows=-1 for "give me all"
Date Wed, 25 May 2016 07:28:52 GMT
Hi,

it could be that you hit some "bug", because of the missing check. Maybe the value overflowed
and -1 was then interpreted like Integer.MAX_VALUE. This would make Lucene allocate a huuuuuuuuge
array of 2 Giga * 4 bytes = 8 GiB for collecting the search results in a priority queue. And
this is very bad memory-wise and expensive from computing power standpoint.

Uwe

-----
Uwe Schindler
H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen
http://www.thetaphi.de
eMail: uwe@thetaphi.de

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Per Steffensen [mailto:persteff@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2016 9:12 AM
> To: dev@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Using rows=-1 for "give me all"
> 
> On 25/05/16 01:11, Chris Hostetter wrote:
> > : > : Back when we used 4.4.0 I believe a query with rows=-1 returned all
> > : > matching
> >
> > : > Nope -- that's never been how rows=-1 behaved.
> > : Believe you are wrong. That was how it behaved in 4.4.0
> >
> > Nope -- not in a regular search it didn't...
> OK, thanks. I am confused now, because we have been using the "feature"
> a lot in the past - also for none-grouping queries. I will investigate
> more, but cannot promise I will come to a conclusion that is relevant here.
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org


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


Mime
View raw message