Thanks Paul. In my case, I don't have nested queries but rather separate queries running against different indexes -- some with very high clause counts, and some with very low clause counts. These are executing in a web environment with the same memory space and process, so concurrency can sometimes cause problems when both types of queries need to execute simultaneously.
-- j On 4/15/06, Paul Elschot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Saturday 15 April 2006 18:20, Jeff Rodenburg wrote: > > What was the thinking behind making the BooleanQuery maxClauseCount a > > static? Or, I guess more to the point, why not an instance setting as > well? > > > > Not trying to point out a flaw, just curious about the original thinking > > behind the setting. I have a situation where I have a set of > BooleanQueries > > that use a high number of clauses, but another set that needs a low > number > > of clauses (different indexes searched, and efficiencies dictate the > > high/low clause range.) > > The reason is to have simplicity in dealing with the case of a single > BooleanQuery using many terms. This was done to avoid spurious > OutOfMemory problems for queries that happen to expand to a lot > of terms, and for that it works well. > > With nested BooleanQuerys it wouldn't even make sence to have an > instance setting, because in that case the maximum number of clauses > should be associated with the top level query only. > > Regards, > Paul Elschot. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
