Super Search confused?

Super-searching for rare words emits nonsense percentages and/or nonsense dates:

Remainder of query was not run (used 10.01 seconds so far)

Found 0 nodes roughly between 2023-07-06 and 0 (searched 279.36% of DB).

where any text contains "rhababer"

Date: Author/owner: Title: Node type:

Press Next> to continue searching remaining 586.07% of DB.

Please be patient after submitting your search.

(Emphasis mine)

The search works fine, so the nonsense values are probably just cosmetic.

Update: Now that this node exists, the first result page works fine and lists this node. The next result page returns nonsense values:

Found 0 nodes roughly between 2019-08-25 and 0 (searched 739.47% of DB).

where any text contains "rhababer"

Date: Author/owner: Title: Node type:

Press Next> to continue searching remaining 122.21% of DB.

Please be patient after submitting your search.

Alexander

--
Today I will gladly share my knowledge and experience, for there are no sweeter words than "I told you so". ;-)

Comment on Super Search confused?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Super Search confused? (References) by eyepopslikeamosquito (Archbishop) on Oct 16, 2023 at 05:53 UTC
I use Super Search a lot and it has become second nature to ignore the weird percentages it reports ... actually I quite enjoy them for some light relief, because Super Search always seems to find what I'm looking for. :) Not certain, but I suspect the wonky percentages started right after the unfortunate sudden jump in node-ids of 2019 from 1233781 to 11100000. See Also Stats for super search look buggy by the LanX (2021) Super Search confused? by afoken (2023) Question about search results. by swampyankee (2024) A number of Super Search is confused references were added later to the See Also section.	[reply]
Re^2: Super Search confused? by Discipulus (Canon) on Oct 16, 2023 at 08:46 UTC
> Not certain, but I suspect the wonky percentages started right after the unfortunate sudden jump in node-ids of 2019 from 1233781 to 11100000 yes is this and is not fixable, maybe better to no show at all percentage? btw is this a PM Discussion rather than a meditation, no? update 13:37 I moved it to PerlMonks Discussion L* There are no rules, there are no thumbs.. Reinvent the wheel, then learn The Wheel; may be one day you reinvent one of THE WHEELS.	[reply] [d/l]
Re^2: Super Search confused? by soonix (Chancellor) on Oct 16, 2023 at 08:41 UTC
actually I quite enjoy them for some light relief, because Super Search always seems to find what I'm looking for. :) Even when it doesn't find what I'm looking for, I'm consoled by Super Search's super thoroughness ;-)	[reply]
Re: Super Search confused? by LanX (Saint) on Oct 16, 2023 at 16:40 UTC
We talked about it before, several times. Some years ago one of the gods accidentally caused an experimental jump of a magnitude in the node IDs. That means the current max ID is far bigger than the real number of nodes. He later patched the calculation to take the gap into account, but it fails if the search takes longer than 10 secs IIRC. You'll find multiple threads about this when using super search (sic) HTH! Cheers Rolf _{(addicted to the Perl Programming Language :) see Wikisyntax for the Monastery}	[reply]
Re: Super Search confused? by cavac (Prior) on Oct 20, 2023 at 07:05 UTC
searched 739.47%* of DB* Well, Super Search is thorough ;-) I think Douglas Adams wrote a scene (can't remember if it was in Hitchhiker or Starship Titanic; might have been one of the radio plays) that fits here: Q: How many lifeboats are there? A: None! Q: Have you counted them? A: Yes, twice! Edit: If someone has the correct source to jog my memory, i'd appreciate it. PerlMonks XP is useless? Not anymore: XPD - Do more with your PerlMonks XP	[reply]