Re: Single arg constructor LruTaxonomyWriterCache uses the unsafe LRU_HASHED

All right, I will ask my co-worker to supply the patch+test (he is the guy that found it) On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 3:41 AM, Michael McCandless < luc...@mikemccandless.com> wrote: > +1 to make this warning clear and fix the default to use the accurate > cache. > > Mike McCandless > >

Re: Single arg constructor LruTaxonomyWriterCache uses the unsafe LRU_HASHED

+1 to make this warning clear and fix the default to use the accurate cache. Mike McCandless http://blog.mikemccandless.com On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 4:22 AM, Rob Audenaerde wrote: > Hi all, > > We bumped into a hash collision in the LruTaxonomyWriterCache, which >

Re: Single arg constructor LruTaxonomyWriterCache uses the unsafe LRU_HASHED

Sounds like it's worth a JIRA to me. While not at all familiar with that class, I suspect that changing the signature at this point would break back-compat, so perhaps create a new c'tor and deprecate the old one if you decide to change the arg? I'll defer of course to people who know the

Single arg constructor LruTaxonomyWriterCache uses the unsafe LRU_HASHED

Hi all, We bumped into a hash collision in the LruTaxonomyWriterCache, which caused a wrong facet to be indexed for a document. (It took some time to figure out what was going wrong..) The javadoc of this constructor is not explicitly telling it is unsafe (you need to check the enum itself to