vsop-479 commented on PR #13159:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13159#issuecomment-1985346755
@rmuir
If there is no problem with this change, would you like to merge it?
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to
bugmakerr commented on code in PR #13162:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13162#discussion_r1517586857
##
lucene/core/src/java/org/apache/lucene/search/FloatVectorSimilarityValuesSource.java:
##
@@ -40,6 +40,9 @@ public FloatVectorSimilarityValuesSource(float[] ve
javanna opened a new pull request, #13167:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13167
Not a functional change: I think we can improve readability of optCount, and
return a value as soon as we can instead of looping through clauses further for
nothing.
--
This is an automated me
javanna closed pull request #13167: Simplify BooleanWeight#optCount
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13167
--
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 unsubscr
javanna commented on PR #13167:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13167#issuecomment-1985593882
I missed that we may still have count == numDocs hence return count although
unknownCount is set to true, which means we cannot immediately return -1 like I
was proposing. Closing.
--
rmuir merged PR #13159:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13159
--
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.apach
mikemccand commented on code in PR #13149:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13149#discussion_r1517878022
##
lucene/core/src/java/org/apache/lucene/util/bkd/DocIdsWriter.java:
##
@@ -36,6 +36,66 @@ final class DocIdsWriter {
private final int[] scratch;
+ privat
benwtrent commented on issue #13127:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/issues/13127#issuecomment-1986293179
Looking at the code in `DocumentsWriterDeleteQueue#close()`, we trip if
`seqNo` is ever larger than `maxSeqNo`.
`maxSeqNo` is set in `DocumentsWriterDeleteQueue#advanceQueu
benwtrent commented on issue #13127:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/issues/13127#issuecomment-1986327081
OK, looking at where they are used, it seems like they were attempted to be
synchronized, but we aren't synchronizing on the same things, which could cause
a race condition.
benwtrent opened a new pull request, #13169:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13169
13127 is failing due to seqNo being larger than `maxSeqNo` on `close()`.
`maxSeqNo` is set during `DocumentsWriterDeleteQueue#advanceQueue`,
synchronized on self. It utilizes `getLastSequenc
romseygeek commented on code in PR #13165:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13165#discussion_r1518350668
##
lucene/highlighter/src/java/org/apache/lucene/search/uhighlight/UnifiedHighlighter.java:
##
@@ -1130,7 +1134,16 @@ public boolean acceptField(String field) {
github-actions[bot] commented on PR #13128:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13128#issuecomment-1986591018
This PR has not had activity in the past 2 weeks, labeling it as stale. If
the PR is waiting for review, notify the d...@lucene.apache.org list. Thank you
for your contributi
github-actions[bot] commented on PR #13125:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13125#issuecomment-1986591048
This PR has not had activity in the past 2 weeks, labeling it as stale. If
the PR is waiting for review, notify the d...@lucene.apache.org list. Thank you
for your contributi
github-actions[bot] commented on PR #12828:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/12828#issuecomment-1986591236
This PR has not had activity in the past 2 weeks, labeling it as stale. If
the PR is waiting for review, notify the d...@lucene.apache.org list. Thank you
for your contributi
dsmiley commented on issue #9855:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/issues/9855#issuecomment-1986742857
I don't think I follow the rationale for why this was done. I believe the
value of the limit is either (a) end-users abusing the system or (b) developer
users not recognizing they sh
antonha commented on code in PR #13149:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13149#discussion_r1518509612
##
lucene/core/src/java/org/apache/lucene/util/bkd/DocIdsWriter.java:
##
@@ -36,6 +36,66 @@ final class DocIdsWriter {
private final int[] scratch;
+ private f
antonha commented on PR #13149:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13149#issuecomment-1986780683
Thanks for the approval!
I do however think that it would be good to prove this performance
improvement in luceneutil before merging, to make the benchmark more easily
reproducib
17 matches
Mail list logo
