[
http://opensource.atlassian.com/projects/hibernate/browse/HSEARCH-200?pag...
]
Sanne Grinovero commented on HSEARCH-200:
-----------------------------------------
Now I remember why I avoided proposing to add this setting:
I don't like the possibility to have batch.max_field_length and
transaction.max_field_length set as different values.
The whole point of "max field length" is about loosing some random data to avoid
out of memory issues,
so it could have some sense to have different values on batched indexing than on
transactional-indexing,
still this means the result of indexing may differ depending on the chosen method.
Finally when using the "ram_buffer_size" correctly the user has the ability to
define a memory limit independently
of the exact number of fields, so in this case the option may be unneeded (unless a single
document caused an OOM).
We could expose this setting, but should we mark it as "advanced" ?
Also it is trivial to add "term_index_interval" and
"max_buffered_delete_terms" (I actually use the first one),
but I can't really understand the possible implications of
"max_buffered_delete_terms", could it cause any problem
in H.Search?
Expose IndexWriter setting MAX_FIELD_LENGTH via IndexWriterSetting
------------------------------------------------------------------
Key: HSEARCH-200
URL:
http://opensource.atlassian.com/projects/hibernate/browse/HSEARCH-200
Project: Hibernate Search
Issue Type: New Feature
Components: engine
Affects Versions: 3.0.1.GA
Reporter: Hardy Ferentschik
Priority: Minor
http://forum.hibernate.org/viewtopic.php?t=987001
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators:
http://opensource.atlassian.com/projects/hibernate/secure/Administrators....
-
For more information on JIRA, see:
http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira