[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1084?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12559549#action_12559549
]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-1084:
--------------------------------------------
{quote}
Does this break back-compatibility if we change this in a minor version?
{quote}
Technically it does, but I think (guesssing?) most of the time when
this limit kicks in, the application (if they knew about it) would
consider it a bug? Ie, fixing this would almost always improve
applications?
I think most Lucene users are not aware that this truncation is
occurring (it's not something you'd expect).
Or, are we thinking that there are quite a few applications where
truly enormous documents are indexed and this change is going to cause
massive slowdown for such applications?
> increase default maxFieldLength?
> --------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-1084
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1084
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Index
> Affects Versions: 2.2
> Reporter: Daniel Naber
> Assignee: Michael McCandless
> Fix For: 2.4
>
>
> To my understanding, Lucene 2.3 will easily index large documents. So
> shouldn't we get rid of the 10,000 default limit for the field length? 10,000
> isn't that much and as Lucene doesn't have any error logging by default, this
> is a common problem for users that is difficult to debug if you don't know
> where to look.
> A better new default might be Integer.MAX_VALUE.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
