[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-7880?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16055916#comment-16055916
]
Erick Erickson commented on LUCENE-7880:
----------------------------------------
Adrien:
So how would you fix the design? Let's forget the foregoing discussion and
start with a clean-slate. You obviously know lots more about Lucene than I do
so what's solutions can you think of?
There are solid arguments why this limit is too low. Complexifying Lucene isn't
ideal either. Whether it's making the limit configurable per-query is the right
solution is obviously debatable.
So what would work? Having a static variable where setting it in one core
affects others may have made sense N years ago, but now it's generating
problems or we wouldn't be having this discussion. If you were writing this
from scratch would you advocate the current design? If not, can you think of a
different design that wouldn't have this limitation?
> Make boolean query clause limit configurable per-query
> ------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-7880
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-7880
> Project: Lucene - Core
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Yonik Seeley
>
> As we know, the magic BooleanQuery.maxClauseCount has bitten many people over
> time.
> It's also a static, which really hurts multi-tenancy (i.e. we can't have
> different settings for different users, clients, or use-cases).
> If we want to keep this static as a default, then at least we should allow it
> to be overridden on a per-query basis when we know it is the desired behavior
> and not a bug.
> Perhaps the simplest way to achieve this would be a setter on
> BooleanQuery.Builder that configures the limit for that instance only?
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.4.14#64029)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
