From db0f679f543b84b12d5623de708f68cefd167c4a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "http://joeyh.name/" Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2014 16:03:09 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] Added a comment --- ...ent_1_43c824a3b843faa2377bfd78158c72fe._comment | 14 ++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+) create mode 100644 doc/bugs/Bloom_filter_capacity_too_large_to_represent/comment_1_43c824a3b843faa2377bfd78158c72fe._comment diff --git a/doc/bugs/Bloom_filter_capacity_too_large_to_represent/comment_1_43c824a3b843faa2377bfd78158c72fe._comment b/doc/bugs/Bloom_filter_capacity_too_large_to_represent/comment_1_43c824a3b843faa2377bfd78158c72fe._comment new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..0bf00d7d5e --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/bugs/Bloom_filter_capacity_too_large_to_represent/comment_1_43c824a3b843faa2377bfd78158c72fe._comment @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +[[!comment format=mdwn + username="http://joeyh.name/" + ip="209.250.56.132" + subject="comment 1" + date="2014-09-12T16:03:09Z" + content=""" +It seems you must have tweaked the annex.bloomcapacity and/or annex.bloomaccuracy settings, probably to some quite large values. + +For example capacity of 50000000 and accuracy of 10000000000 will fail this way. + +This happens when it runs out of Double floating point precision to calculate the requested bloom filter size. I think that a bloom filter can be built that has this capacity/accuracy, it's just that Data.BloomFilter.Easy.safeSuggestSizing falls over trying to find the bloom filter size. Also, such a bloom filter may use rather a lot of memory.. + + +"""]]