Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-lucene-solr-user-archive@minotaur.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-solr-user-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 4FA571769D for ; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 04:09:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 18862 invoked by uid 500); 16 Feb 2016 04:09:19 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-solr-user-archive@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 18797 invoked by uid 500); 16 Feb 2016 04:09:19 -0000 Mailing-List: contact solr-user-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list solr-user@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 18781 invoked by uid 99); 16 Feb 2016 04:09:18 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO spamd3-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 04:09:18 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd3-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd3-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id 2B46218058A for ; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 04:09:18 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd3-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.431 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.431 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.329, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=disabled Authentication-Results: spamd3-us-west.apache.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=elyograg.org Received: from mx1-lw-eu.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd3-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.10]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Gv0jM34DXhh8 for ; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 04:09:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from frodo.elyograg.org (frodo.elyograg.org [166.70.79.219]) by mx1-lw-eu.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-lw-eu.apache.org) with ESMTP id 5C8EB5F1B9 for ; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 04:09:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by frodo.elyograg.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F06E44E83 for ; Mon, 15 Feb 2016 21:09:06 -0700 (MST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=elyograg.org; h= content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type:in-reply-to :mime-version:user-agent:date:date:message-id:from:from :references:subject:subject:received:received; s=mail; t= 1455595746; bh=eRL+GS7Sysev/Nl53SYbFtbvNDFhrS0dOB71n/Di8xc=; b=d tq8L+a5WQjJwiJShWlAb4UUMMi8+QosADs7AEZdpz0GwemhxCvF/83gYCGKhMZ5q wX8m8fsq01oCY07gRPtDqH1/ceutwoI4/wnDdR788zZ53I0ipajBuv2VLYVb5T5C PWqxyXXeuWe+OfaHsRQxVR5c3aZ5UegF4cYxcEBPf8= X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at frodo.elyograg.org Received: from frodo.elyograg.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (frodo.elyograg.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id PK4Qf309Vero for ; Mon, 15 Feb 2016 21:09:06 -0700 (MST) Received: from [192.168.1.107] (107.int.elyograg.org [192.168.1.107]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: elyograg@elyograg.org) by frodo.elyograg.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8ADAE320E for ; Mon, 15 Feb 2016 21:09:06 -0700 (MST) Subject: Re: Why is my index size going up (or: why it was smaller)? To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org References: From: Shawn Heisey X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110 Message-ID: <56C2A0EA.6040403@elyograg.org> Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2016 21:09:14 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 2/15/2016 1:12 PM, Steven White wrote: > I'm fixing code that I noticed to have a defect. My expectation was that > once I make the fix, the index size will be smaller but instead I see it > growing. I'm going to assume that SolrField_ID_LIST and SolrField_ALL_FIELDS_DATA are String instances that contain "ID_LIST" and "ALL_FIELDS_DATA". All three pieces of code will add exactly one document with exactly two fields. The value of "field" is never used in any of the code loops, and "doc" is never reset/changed. I'm guessing that the actual code is more complex than the code fragments that you shared. We will need to see actual code, because the shared code looks incomplete. Thanks, Shawn