Mailing-List: contact lucene-user-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Lucene Users List" <lucene-user@jakarta.apache.org>
Received-SPF: neutral (hermes.apache.org: local policy)
Message-ID: <011001c4bb78$bf6121a0$1402a8c0@POWERPACK>
From: "Terry Steichen" <terry@net-frame.com>
To: "Lucene Users List" <lucene-user@jakarta.apache.org>
References: 
 <4F8DDDFDAC9A864AAED5BB875129DF4B0690C964@tmskoex01.tm.thomsonmedia.com>
Subject: Re: BooleanQuery - TooManyClauses 
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 12:27:53 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_010D_01C4BB57.373C63F0"

------=_NextPart_000_010D_01C4BB57.373C63F0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I think what Erik's asking is whether you can live with expressing your =
indexed date in the form of YYYYMMDD, without the hour and minute =
extension.  That will sharply educe the number of range query expansion =
terms.  If you're using the timestamp as a unique identifier, you might =
consider creating two fields, one for the unique identifier =
(YYYYMMDDHHmmssZ) and one for the date (YYYYMMDD), and only use the =
range on the date field (not on the timestamp field)

Regards,

Terry
  ----- Original Message -----=20
  From: Angelov, Rossen=20
  To: 'Lucene Users List'=20
  Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 11:43 AM
  Subject: RE: BooleanQuery - TooManyClauses=20


  >
  >On Oct 25, 2004, at 6:35 PM, Angelov, Rossen wrote:
  >> Why there is a limit on the number of clauses? and is there any =
harm in
  >> setting MaxClauseCount to Integer.MAX_VALUE?
  >
  >The harm is in performance and resource utilization.  Rather than do=20
  >this, though, read on...
  >
  >> I'm using a Range Query on a field that represents dates and =
getting
  >> BooleanQuery$TooManyClauses exception.
  >> This is the query -  +/article/createddateiso8601:[20030101000000 =
TO
  >> 20031231999999]
  >
  >Do you really need to do ranges down to that time level?  Or are you=20
  >really just concerned with date?  If you indexed using YYYYMMDD=20
  >instead, there would only be a maximum of 365 terms in that range,=20
  >whereas you've got zillions (ok, I was too lazy to do the math!  But=20
  >far more than 1,024).

  I need to do range searches. They are part of the requirements and =
even
  worse, the range can be as big as up to 10 years for now. It will get
  bigger. I'm indexing using YYYYMMDDHHmmssZ format and as you said =
there will
  be more than just 365 terms per year. This number changes every day as =
new
  documents are indexed daily. The only limit I can see is the number of
  documents that were indexed. I guess maxClauseCount can't be more than =
the
  indexed documents.

  >I recommend changing how you index dates, or at least use a different =

  >field for queries that do not need to concern themselves with the=20
  >timestamp aspect.

  What do you mean change how the dates are indexed? By the way this =
field is
  indexed as a string.

  >
  > Erik
  >
  >

  Ross

  "This communication is intended solely for the addressee and is
  confidential and not for third party unauthorized distribution."


------=_NextPart_000_010D_01C4BB57.373C63F0--