mocobeta commented on PR #920: URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/920#issuecomment-1135958878
@jtibshirani thanks for reviewing. > Stepping through what happens, it looks like we just hit a really unlucky query + data combination where it takes more than 150 steps to conclude the search. Yes, it looks like it hits a really unlucky combination of query and data - once you add a line something like `random().nextInt();` somewhere in the test code to move forward the random state, it becomes all green. First I was confused about what was happening there. > Another option is to decrease k to make the search more restrictive (currently it's set to 5, I think 1 would work instead). Smaller `k` (<= 4) surely fixes the problem. I cannot determine which approach is better in this context. Let me know if we should tweak `k` instead of the range query's upper bound, then I'll update this! -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: issues-h...@lucene.apache.org
