[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-4919?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13626475#comment-13626475
]
Robert Muir commented on LUCENE-4919:
-------------------------------------
I have no opinion: I'm not a hashing guy. I'm just mentioning the change is
pretty serious.
Additionally I'm unhappy the hashcode is part of the API: so I dont think it
should be changed in a minor release (e.g. things like TermToBytesRefAttribute
expose this as an API requirement). But I think trunk is fine.
On the other hand I know the current situation has some bad worst-case behavior
that users might actually hit (e.g. indexing increasing numerics), but I don't
see sure how this patch addresses that. It seems to me that if we want to go
thru all the trouble to improve the hashing (which would be a good thing), we
should solve that too, maybe involving a totally different hashing scheme like
what they did with java (i dont know).
> IntsRef, BytesRef and CharsRef return incorrect hashcode when filled with 0
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-4919
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-4919
> Project: Lucene - Core
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: core/other
> Affects Versions: 4.2
> Reporter: Renaud Delbru
> Fix For: 4.3
>
> Attachments: LUCENE-4919.patch
>
>
> IntsRef, BytesRef and CharsRef implementation do not follow the java
> Arrays.hashCode implementation, and return incorrect hashcode when filled
> with 0.
> For example, an IntsRef with \{ 0 \} will return the same hashcode than an
> IntsRef with \{ 0, 0 \}.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
