A report for "Not so important (but still is a) bug"
|
View:
New views
5 Messages
—
Rating Filter:
Alert me
|
 |
A report for "Not so important (but still is a) bug"
by Shai Erera
::
Rate this Message:
Hi
I wanted to check something and wrote this very simple program, which surprisingly failed because of a FileNotFound exception: Directory dir = new RAMDirectory(); IndexWriter writer = new IndexWriter(dir, new SimpleAnalyzer(), MaxFieldLength.UNLIMITED); writer.setInfoStream(System.out); writer.addDocument(new Document()); writer.commit(); writer.close(); It fails with the exception: Exception in thread "main" java.io.FileNotFoundException: _0.prx at org.apache.lucene.store.RAMDirectory.fileLength(RAMDirectory.java:149) at org.apache.lucene.index.DocumentsWriter.segmentSize(DocumentsWriter.java:1150) at org.apache.lucene.index.DocumentsWriter.flush(DocumentsWriter.java:587) at org.apache.lucene.index.IndexWriter.doFlushInternal(IndexWriter.java:3572) at org.apache.lucene.index.IndexWriter.doFlush(IndexWriter.java:3483) at org.apache.lucene.index.IndexWriter.flush(IndexWriter.java:3474) at org.apache.lucene.index.IndexWriter.addDocument(IndexWriter.java:1940) at org.apache.lucene.index.IndexWriter.addDocument(IndexWriter.java:1894) This happens on the latest code from trunk (and validated also against 2.4). Seems like it's there forever. This only happens when I set infoStream, because as part of the logging we compute the segment size. _0.prx is not found because I didn't add any terms to the index. If I don't set the infoStream, or add terms to the index, this exception is not thrown. Like I wrote in the subject, I don't think it's that important (for example to hold off 2.9.1), but still a bug. Not a very important bug even, but I can't get it out of my head that it's still a bug :) Can be fixed by making sure segmentSize() does not thrown any FNF exception for missing .prx? Does not sound too safe to me. Maybe we just remember this and tell people (like me) "even in silly tests, add a term to the document"? Shai. |
|
|
Re: A report for "Not so important (but still is a) bug"
by Michael McCandless-2
::
Rate this Message:
We should fix this; I'll open an issue & dig.
Somehow SegmentInfo.files() is being buggy, claiming _0.prx is a file belonging to the segment, when it clearly isn't. BTW we can't hold 2.9.1, since it's now "out" (as of yesterday) :) Mike On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 8:58 AM, Shai Erera <serera@...> wrote: > Hi > > I wanted to check something and wrote this very simple program, which > surprisingly failed because of a FileNotFound exception: > > Directory dir = new RAMDirectory(); > IndexWriter writer = new IndexWriter(dir, new SimpleAnalyzer(), > MaxFieldLength.UNLIMITED); > writer.setInfoStream(System.out); > writer.addDocument(new Document()); > writer.commit(); > writer.close(); > > It fails with the exception: > > Exception in thread "main" java.io.FileNotFoundException: _0.prx > at > org.apache.lucene.store.RAMDirectory.fileLength(RAMDirectory.java:149) > at > org.apache.lucene.index.DocumentsWriter.segmentSize(DocumentsWriter.java:1150) > at > org.apache.lucene.index.DocumentsWriter.flush(DocumentsWriter.java:587) > at > org.apache.lucene.index.IndexWriter.doFlushInternal(IndexWriter.java:3572) > at org.apache.lucene.index.IndexWriter.doFlush(IndexWriter.java:3483) > at org.apache.lucene.index.IndexWriter.flush(IndexWriter.java:3474) > at > org.apache.lucene.index.IndexWriter.addDocument(IndexWriter.java:1940) > at > org.apache.lucene.index.IndexWriter.addDocument(IndexWriter.java:1894) > > This happens on the latest code from trunk (and validated also against 2.4). > Seems like it's there forever. This only happens when I set infoStream, > because as part of the logging we compute the segment size. _0.prx is not > found because I didn't add any terms to the index. If I don't set the > infoStream, or add terms to the index, this exception is not thrown. > > Like I wrote in the subject, I don't think it's that important (for example > to hold off 2.9.1), but still a bug. Not a very important bug even, but I > can't get it out of my head that it's still a bug :) > > Can be fixed by making sure segmentSize() does not thrown any FNF exception > for missing .prx? Does not sound too safe to me. Maybe we just remember this > and tell people (like me) "even in silly tests, add a term to the document"? > > Shai. > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@... For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@... |
|
|
Re: A report for "Not so important (but still is a) bug"
by Simon Willnauer
::
Rate this Message:
dude, will we have 2.9.2? :)
simon On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 4:14 PM, Michael McCandless <lucene@...> wrote: > We should fix this; I'll open an issue & dig. > > Somehow SegmentInfo.files() is being buggy, claiming _0.prx is a file > belonging to the segment, when it clearly isn't. > > BTW we can't hold 2.9.1, since it's now "out" (as of yesterday) :) > > Mike > > On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 8:58 AM, Shai Erera <serera@...> wrote: >> Hi >> >> I wanted to check something and wrote this very simple program, which >> surprisingly failed because of a FileNotFound exception: >> >> Directory dir = new RAMDirectory(); >> IndexWriter writer = new IndexWriter(dir, new SimpleAnalyzer(), >> MaxFieldLength.UNLIMITED); >> writer.setInfoStream(System.out); >> writer.addDocument(new Document()); >> writer.commit(); >> writer.close(); >> >> It fails with the exception: >> >> Exception in thread "main" java.io.FileNotFoundException: _0.prx >> at >> org.apache.lucene.store.RAMDirectory.fileLength(RAMDirectory.java:149) >> at >> org.apache.lucene.index.DocumentsWriter.segmentSize(DocumentsWriter.java:1150) >> at >> org.apache.lucene.index.DocumentsWriter.flush(DocumentsWriter.java:587) >> at >> org.apache.lucene.index.IndexWriter.doFlushInternal(IndexWriter.java:3572) >> at org.apache.lucene.index.IndexWriter.doFlush(IndexWriter.java:3483) >> at org.apache.lucene.index.IndexWriter.flush(IndexWriter.java:3474) >> at >> org.apache.lucene.index.IndexWriter.addDocument(IndexWriter.java:1940) >> at >> org.apache.lucene.index.IndexWriter.addDocument(IndexWriter.java:1894) >> >> This happens on the latest code from trunk (and validated also against 2.4). >> Seems like it's there forever. This only happens when I set infoStream, >> because as part of the logging we compute the segment size. _0.prx is not >> found because I didn't add any terms to the index. If I don't set the >> infoStream, or add terms to the index, this exception is not thrown. >> >> Like I wrote in the subject, I don't think it's that important (for example >> to hold off 2.9.1), but still a bug. Not a very important bug even, but I >> can't get it out of my head that it's still a bug :) >> >> Can be fixed by making sure segmentSize() does not thrown any FNF exception >> for missing .prx? Does not sound too safe to me. Maybe we just remember this >> and tell people (like me) "even in silly tests, add a term to the document"? >> >> Shai. >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@... > For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@... > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@... For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@... |
|
|
Re: A report for "Not so important (but still is a) bug"
by Michael McCandless-2
::
Rate this Message:
I sure hope not :) I hope 3.0 is out soonish...
But just in case, I've reopened & marked fix version 2.9.2, so if we ever do a 2.9.2 that'll remind me to backport. Mike On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 11:18 AM, Simon Willnauer <simon.willnauer@...> wrote: > dude, will we have 2.9.2? :) > > simon > > On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 4:14 PM, Michael McCandless > <lucene@...> wrote: >> We should fix this; I'll open an issue & dig. >> >> Somehow SegmentInfo.files() is being buggy, claiming _0.prx is a file >> belonging to the segment, when it clearly isn't. >> >> BTW we can't hold 2.9.1, since it's now "out" (as of yesterday) :) >> >> Mike >> >> On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 8:58 AM, Shai Erera <serera@...> wrote: >>> Hi >>> >>> I wanted to check something and wrote this very simple program, which >>> surprisingly failed because of a FileNotFound exception: >>> >>> Directory dir = new RAMDirectory(); >>> IndexWriter writer = new IndexWriter(dir, new SimpleAnalyzer(), >>> MaxFieldLength.UNLIMITED); >>> writer.setInfoStream(System.out); >>> writer.addDocument(new Document()); >>> writer.commit(); >>> writer.close(); >>> >>> It fails with the exception: >>> >>> Exception in thread "main" java.io.FileNotFoundException: _0.prx >>> at >>> org.apache.lucene.store.RAMDirectory.fileLength(RAMDirectory.java:149) >>> at >>> org.apache.lucene.index.DocumentsWriter.segmentSize(DocumentsWriter.java:1150) >>> at >>> org.apache.lucene.index.DocumentsWriter.flush(DocumentsWriter.java:587) >>> at >>> org.apache.lucene.index.IndexWriter.doFlushInternal(IndexWriter.java:3572) >>> at org.apache.lucene.index.IndexWriter.doFlush(IndexWriter.java:3483) >>> at org.apache.lucene.index.IndexWriter.flush(IndexWriter.java:3474) >>> at >>> org.apache.lucene.index.IndexWriter.addDocument(IndexWriter.java:1940) >>> at >>> org.apache.lucene.index.IndexWriter.addDocument(IndexWriter.java:1894) >>> >>> This happens on the latest code from trunk (and validated also against 2.4). >>> Seems like it's there forever. This only happens when I set infoStream, >>> because as part of the logging we compute the segment size. _0.prx is not >>> found because I didn't add any terms to the index. If I don't set the >>> infoStream, or add terms to the index, this exception is not thrown. >>> >>> Like I wrote in the subject, I don't think it's that important (for example >>> to hold off 2.9.1), but still a bug. Not a very important bug even, but I >>> can't get it out of my head that it's still a bug :) >>> >>> Can be fixed by making sure segmentSize() does not thrown any FNF exception >>> for missing .prx? Does not sound too safe to me. Maybe we just remember this >>> and tell people (like me) "even in silly tests, add a term to the document"? >>> >>> Shai. >>> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@... >> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@... >> >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@... > For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@... > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@... For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@... |
|
|
Re: A report for "Not so important (but still is a) bug"
by Shai Erera
::
Rate this Message:
Oh ... I missed 2.9.1? sigh
Thanks Mike Shai On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 7:46 PM, Michael McCandless <lucene@...> wrote: I sure hope not :) I hope 3.0 is out soonish... |
| Free embeddable forum powered by Nabble | Forum Help |
