Ferret talk - Aug 2008 - ignored or forgotten values in reindexing

Hi,


Using acts_as_ferret with rails 2.1, I encounter some strange  
behaviour in reindexing all records from my model.
Some seem to be ignored. The log generated by reindexing misses some  
values; but no error is printed about parsing these strings.

I was alerted by some results missing. I then experimented with sql  
search (postgresql).
For a single word, the sql search
MyModel.find(:all, :conditions => [''entry ILIKE ?'',
"%#{@query}
%"], :limit => 50)
gives always more results than
MyModel.find_with_ferret(@query, {:limit => 50})

How could I do to identify why some values are not indexed ?
Is there a debug log level ?
Is this an already known issue ?


   config.gem ''ferret'', :version =>
''0.11.6''
   config.gem ''acts_as_ferret'', :version =>
''0.4.3''

In my model I have
acts_as_ferret :fields => {:entry => {:store  
=> :yes}}, :default_field => :entry, :remote => false

Jean-Christophe Michel
jc.michel at symetrie.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/ferret-talk/attachments/20080827/ed32e7f7/attachment.html>

On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 7:53 PM, lists.jc.michel at symetrie.com
<lists.jc.michel at symetrie.com> wrote:
> Using acts_as_ferret with rails 2.1, I encounter some strange behaviour in
> reindexing all records from my model.
> Some seem to be ignored. The log generated by reindexing misses some
values;
> but no error is printed about parsing these strings.
> I was alerted by some results missing.
I have seen this problem as well.  Same versions of ferret/aaf
(0.11.6/0.4.3).  Differences are Rails 2.0 and using SQL Server.

The limited amount of investigation that I have been able to do
suggests a fence post error in the bulk index pagination.  Of 2000+
objects, 2 are missing.  I''m only basing the fence post conjecture on
the number of missing objects & the default pagination window (1000).
I have not even had a chance to investigate changing the window size,
let alone investigate deeper.

Hope that helps (as least you''re not alone).  I should have some more
time tomorrow to investigate.

-Chris