lucene-java-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Erick Erickson <>
Subject Re: Strange index corruption related to numeric fields when upgrading from 6.0.1
Date Tue, 20 Sep 2016 17:01:35 GMT
A wild shot in the dark: Are the square brackets really part of the
field name? They have never officially been supported, from the Ref

"Field names should consist of alphanumeric or underscore characters
only and not start with a digit. This is not currently strictly
enforced, but other field names will not have first class support from
all components and back compatibility is not guaranteed"

Your statement "I cannot reproduce the issue if I give the
DoubleDocValuesField a different name" seems to indicate that it's not
a code problem with Lucene if you don't put the brackets in.....


On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 9:04 AM, Jan-Willem van den Broek
<> wrote:
> Hi all,
> I have an application that works fine with 6.0.1, but if I go to 6.1.0 or 6.2.0 then
I occasionally get a corrupted index where the SegmentMerger keeps breaking on a numeric field.
> This is the exception I get:
> ... (stack of application code) ...
> Caused by: java.lang.IllegalArgumentException: field=" [1]calculon" did not index point
>         at org.apache.lucene.codecs.lucene60.Lucene60PointsReader.getBKDReader(
>         at org.apache.lucene.codecs.lucene60.Lucene60PointsReader.size(
>         at org.apache.lucene.codecs.lucene60.Lucene60PointsWriter.merge(
>         at org.apache.lucene.index.SegmentMerger.mergePoints(
>         at org.apache.lucene.index.SegmentMerger.merge(
>         at org.apache.lucene.index.IndexWriter.mergeMiddle(
>         at org.apache.lucene.index.IndexWriter.merge(
>         at org.apache.lucene.index.ConcurrentMergeScheduler.doMerge(
>         at org.apache.lucene.index.ConcurrentMergeScheduler$
> The field " [1]calculon" is always either a LongPoint or DoublePoint with 1 dimension.
The documents containing this field always also contain both a StoredField, and a DoubleDocValuesField
with the same name.
> I cannot reproduce the issue if I give the DoubleDocValuesField a different name. Is
that something that I should be doing in general? I was under the impression that it is OK
to use the same name for all three related fields.
> Here is the infostream from a test that reproduces the issue:
> Unfortunately, while I can reproduce the issue consistently in the full application,
I don't yet have a clean test case with just/mostly Lucene code.
> Any feedback is much appreciated!
> Jan-Willem v/d Broek
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message