lucene-java-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jeff Rodenburg" <jeff.rodenb...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Why is BooleanQuery.maxClauseCount static?
Date Sat, 15 Apr 2006 20:19:39 GMT
Thanks Paul.  In my case, I don't have nested queries but rather separate
queries running against different indexes -- some with very high clause
counts, and some with very low clause counts.  These are executing in a web
environment with the same memory space and process, so concurrency can
sometimes cause problems when both types of queries need to execute
simultaneously.

-- j

On 4/15/06, Paul Elschot <paul.elschot@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>
> On Saturday 15 April 2006 18:20, Jeff Rodenburg wrote:
> > What was the thinking behind making the BooleanQuery maxClauseCount a
> > static?  Or, I guess more to the point, why not an instance setting as
> well?
> >
> > Not trying to point out a flaw, just curious about the original thinking
> > behind the setting.  I have a situation where I have a set of
> BooleanQueries
> > that use a high number of clauses, but another set that needs a low
> number
> > of clauses (different indexes searched, and efficiencies dictate the
> > high/low clause range.)
>
> The reason is to have simplicity in dealing with the case of a single
> BooleanQuery using many terms. This was done to avoid spurious
> OutOfMemory problems for queries that happen to expand to a lot
> of terms, and for that it works well.
>
> With nested BooleanQuerys it wouldn't even make sence to have an
> instance setting, because in that case the maximum number of clauses
> should be associated with the top level query only.
>
> Regards,
> Paul Elschot.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message