lucene-java-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Mark Miller" <>
Subject Re: - possible bug in lock timeout
Date Wed, 07 Nov 2007 13:44:16 GMT
There are a few places in Lucene (prob in a lot of other code as well)
where you should not use Long.MAX_VALUE.

Don't use it as the number of docs to return in a TopDocsCollector
either. If the code that takes that long even just adds 1 to the
variable...your screwed with a huge negative number.

In your case here, a huge long is getting cast to an int, and the int
just cannot hold a number that big.

Prob could be handled better, but I would avoid using Long.MAX_VALUE anyway.

- Mark

On Nov 7, 2007 8:21 AM, Nikolay Diakov <> wrote:
> In Lucene 2.x, in method Lock#obtain(long lockWaitTimeout) I see the
> following line:
> int maxSleepCount = (int)(lockWaitTimeout / LOCK_POLL_INTERVAL);
> Since I wanted to set the lock timeout to the largest possible, I called
> the IndexWriter#setDefaultWriteLockTimeout(Long.MAX_VALUE). This
> produces the effect in the quoted line that we get maxSleepCount a
> negative number.
> Is this intended?
> Cheers,
>    Nik
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message