[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCR-1064?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12522529
]
Ard Schrijvers commented on JCR-1064:
-------------------------------------
Added patch again.
The problem is that in de SearchIndex in the doInti() the
index.getIndexReader().numDocs() is always larger then 0 (this was not true
untill recently, because it worked for me before)
The problem is, that in MultiIndex, when if (indexNames.size() == 0) { , a
persistent index is created. The lucene Docs that are added then do not use the
nodeIndexer, and thus, the FieldNames.PROPERTIES_SET does not occur, and
numDocs > 0, so always old index format style.
I can add in MultiIndex a instance variable and a getter, that is
boolean created;
that I can call from IndexSearcher
In doInit(), I get
1) FieldNames.PROPERTIES_SET exists, or
2) numDocs() == 0 or,
3) index.getNewlyCreated()
I do not see how it can be done otherwise, because I need to know wether for
the particular workspace, a persistent index is created for the first time....I
do not really like the dependencies on other code for the backwards
compatibility though. WDOT?
> Optimize queries that check for the existence of a property
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: JCR-1064
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCR-1064
> Project: Jackrabbit
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: indexing
> Affects Versions: 1.3.1
> Reporter: Ard Schrijvers
> Priority: Minor
> Fix For: 1.4
>
> Attachments: JCR-1064-DEPR.patch
>
>
> //[EMAIL PROTECTED] is transformed into the
> org.apache.jackrabbit.core.query.lucene.MatchAllQuery, that through the
> MatchAllWeight uses the MatchAllScorer. The calculateDocFilter() in
> MatchAllScorer does not scale and becomes slow for growing number of nodes.
> Solution: lucene documents will get a new Field:
> public static final String PROPERTIES_SET = "_:PROPERTIES_SET".intern();
> that holds the available properties of this document.
> NOTE: Lucene indices build without this performance improvement should still
> work and fall back to the original implementation
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
