Rasik Pandey wrote:
> Developers,
> Attached is the diff for MultiSearcher which seems to correct these
> bugs. I have not yet found any problems caused by these changes in
> testing........but we will keep you informed!
[ ... ]
diff -w -r1.4 MultiSearcher.java
96,98c100,105
< public final Document doc(int n) throws IOException {
< int i = searcherIndex(n); // find searcher index
< return searchers[i].doc(n - starts[i]);
---
> public Document doc(int n) throws IOException {
> int i = searcherIndex(n);
> if (i < 0 || i > searchables.length)
> return null;
> else
> return searchables[i].doc(n - starts[i]);
I don't agree with this change. If you pass in a bogus document number
then an exception should be thrown here. ArrayIndexOutOfBounds is not
the friendliest of exceptions, but it's better than returning null.
> 113c120
> < else if (n > midValue)
> ---
>
>> else if (n >= midValue) //made this a ">=", to ensure that a valid index is
>found
This is the standard binary search algorithm, and should not be changed
lightly (according to Knuth, no less). The problem is when there are
multiple entries with the same value then this algorithm doesn't always
return the index of the largest one, which is required in this case. So
I think the fix is to scan for the largest value:
--- MultiSearcher.java.~1.5.~ 2002-07-17 10:28:56.000000000 -0700
+++ MultiSearcher.java 2002-09-19 15:02:02.000000000 -0700
@@ -116,9 +116,13 @@
hi = mid - 1;
else if (n > midValue)
lo = mid + 1;
- else
+ else {
+ while (mid+1 < searchables.length && starts[mid+1] == midValue) {
+ mid++; // return last match
+ }
return mid;
}
+ }
return hi;
}
That passes the test suite just checked in too!
Any objections to this?
Doug
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
