> On Sun, Dec 06, 2009 at 05:31:53PM -0500, Erick Erickson wrote: > > This may be a silly question, and I admit that I haven't looked a the > code, > > but was there a good reason to +1 it in the first place or was that just > > paranoia to prevent off-by-one errors? > > IIRC, this implementation of the priority queue algo leaves open slot 0 to > simplify internal calculations. It was that way when I ported 1.4.3, and > I > doubt that's changed.
Thats still the same. Because calculations in heaps are simplier when 1-based. Because of that heap[0] is unused. > > If there *was* a valid reason, might it make sense to > > +1 min(nDocs, maxDoc())? > > I think the patch is fine. It's really only needed to provide a more > accurate > error message in the event somebody specifies that they want > Integer.MAX_VALUE > elements, not realizing that they will be allocated up front rather than > lazily -- they'll get an OOME rather than a NegativeArraySizeException. The new patch is more intelligent, it will not allocate such a big queue as far as I have seen. It takes the numDocs() of index reader/searcher into account. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
