[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-5618?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
 ]

Shai Erera updated LUCENE-5618:
-------------------------------

    Attachment: LUCENE-5618.patch

After committing LUCENE-5619, with the previous patch 
TestBackwardsCompatibility failed since it didn't handle pre-4.9 indexes well 
-- it didn't handle the case where one generation references multiple fields... 
to resolve that I added in this patch:

* SegmentReader acts accordingly only pre-4.9 indexes: beyond sending all the 
FieldInfos to a certain DocValuesProducer's gen, it ensures each such DVP is 
initialized once per generation.

* Lucene45DocValuesProducer does a lenient fields check if the segment's 
version is pre-4.9.

Note that I didn't add this leniency to Lucene42DocValuesProducer since that 
one doesn't support DocValues updates anyway, and so doesn't experience this 
issue at all.

> DocValues updates send wrong fieldinfos to codec producers
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: LUCENE-5618
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-5618
>             Project: Lucene - Core
>          Issue Type: Bug
>            Reporter: Robert Muir
>            Assignee: Shai Erera
>            Priority: Blocker
>             Fix For: 4.9
>
>         Attachments: LUCENE-5618.patch, LUCENE-5618.patch
>
>
> Spinoff from LUCENE-5616.
> See the example there, docvalues readers get a fieldinfos, but it doesn't 
> contain the correct ones, so they have invalid field numbers at read time.
> This should really be fixed. Maybe a simple solution is to not write 
> "batches" of fields in updates but just have only one field per gen? 
> This removes many-many relationships and would make things easy to understand.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2#6252)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]

Reply via email to