Mailing-List: contact java-user-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of jeff.rodenburg@gmail.com
 designates 64.233.184.232 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
        s=beta; d=gmail.com;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references;
        b=bXb3ARa7onXy6XC2zmhtbDNsWxJIvhOzEx3y/iaAOM1TllWnR70cIe0/ugCHgqulGinw9Y4yHa60+J/MiYeEsw3a1mgIkj0cK2IaHmNeJJXHEDMwSMcyIu7/uz+j89RexBsDB4EFeC0nldKJP4HjmwVjcaOX34o56OlmHhRAEKs=
Message-ID: <50f433360604151319w35012f12t819a47580883e8c8@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2006 13:19:39 -0700
From: "Jeff Rodenburg" <jeff.rodenburg@gmail.com>
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Why is BooleanQuery.maxClauseCount static?
In-Reply-To: <200604152123.42575.paul.elschot@xs4all.nl>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----=_Part_2421_27220383.1145132379909"
References: <50f433360604150920s3ffd74dch1732f91cd4839726@mail.gmail.com>
	 <200604152123.42575.paul.elschot@xs4all.nl>

------=_Part_2421_27220383.1145132379909
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

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 thinkin=
g
> > 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
>
>

------=_Part_2421_27220383.1145132379909--