limitExecutionTimeTo (or boundExecutionTimeTo) seems exactly what we are
looking for.
WDYT?
On 6 nov. 2010, at 13:12, Gustavo Fernandes wrote:
> Solr uses 'timeAllowed' to provide the same functionality, it's think it's a
> nice name!
>
> On 6 Nov 2010 11:33, "Sanne Grinovero" wrote:
> > Hel
I've applied Sanne's work on the work queue, yeah!
But there are remaining bugs that should ideally be addressed or analyzed for
CR2. Let's see what we can do by tomorrow.
I've labelled them 3.3.0.Final but if we can fix them for CR2 even better.
HSEARCH-640 MassIndexer and Java EE
I don't think
On Wed, 08 Dec 2010 11:40:57 +0100, Emmanuel Bernard
wrote:
> limitExecutionTimeTo (or boundExecutionTimeTo) seems exactly what we are
> looking for.
>
> WDYT?
I find it a little confusing to have setTimeout and limitFetchingTime (or
be it limitExecutionTimeTo).
Why not having another vers
I have no strong opinions on this;
I like both
setTimeout(long timeout, TimeUnit timeUnit, boolean allowPartialResults)
and
limitExecutionTimeTo (or boundExecutionTimeTo)
The latter is only taken a milliseconds/long or is it also having a
TimeUnit parameter
but neither express clearly what's
On 8 déc. 2010, at 12:06, Hardy Ferentschik wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Dec 2010 11:40:57 +0100, Emmanuel Bernard
> wrote:
>
>> limitExecutionTimeTo (or boundExecutionTimeTo) seems exactly what we are
>> looking for.
>>
>> WDYT?
>
> I find it a little confusing to have setTimeout and limitFetchingT
On 8 déc. 2010, at 12:26, Sanne Grinovero wrote:
> I have no strong opinions on this;
> I like both
>
> setTimeout(long timeout, TimeUnit timeUnit, boolean allowPartialResults)
> and
> limitExecutionTimeTo (or boundExecutionTimeTo)
>
> The latter is only taken a milliseconds/long or is it als
Well I could argue about "seconds" being appropriate for a database
report / batch work,
while a fulltext query would likely use milliseconds more appropriately,
but I value consistency way more than appropriateness as long as we
can choose for milliseconds.
+1
2010/12/8 Emmanuel Bernard :
>
> On
You obviously haven't tried to build a unit test for this. HSQLDB + Lucene +
HSearch are simply way too fast ;)
On 8 déc. 2010, at 14:01, Sanne Grinovero wrote:
> Well I could argue about "seconds" being appropriate for a database
> report / batch work,
> while a fulltext query would likely use
2010/12/8 Emmanuel Bernard :
> You obviously haven't tried to build a unit test for this. HSQLDB + Lucene +
> HSearch are simply way too fast ;)
you mean faster than milliseconds? I was suggesting to use milliseconds.
>
> On 8 déc. 2010, at 14:01, Sanne Grinovero wrote:
>
>> Well I could argue a
Hi,
Yesterday, I've been looking into HHH-5750 and I found it very convenient that
I could look back in Git and find that the original code was introduced for
issue HHH-3871 and later modified for issue HHH-4791.
This gave me a bit of background and actually made me doubt if the proposed fix
fo
10 matches
Mail list logo
