Ok. I think you should look at the Java API -- this will give you more clarity of what is actually stored in the index and how to extract it. The thing (I think) you're missing is that an inverted index points in the "other" direction (from a given value to all documents that contained it). So unless you "store" that value with the document as a stored field, you'll have to "uninvert" the index yourself.
Dawid On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 10:05 AM, Chetan Mehrotra <chetan.mehro...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Only stored fields are kept for each document. If you need to dump >> internal data structures (terms, positions, offsets, payloads, you >> name it) you'll need to dive into the API and traverse all segments, >> then dump the above (and note that document IDs are per-segment and >> will have to be somehow consolidated back to your document IDs). > > Okie. So this would require deeper understanding of index format. > Would have a look. To start with I was just looking for a way to dump > indexed field names per document and nothing more > > /foo/bar|status, lastModified > /foo/baz|status, type > > Where path is stored field (primary key) and rest of the stuff are > sorted field names. Then such a file can be generated for both indexes > and diff can be done post sorting > >> I don't quite understand the motive here -- the indexes should behave >> identically regardless of the order of input documents; what's the >> point of dumping all this information? > > This is because of way indexing logic is given access to the Node > hierarchy. Would try to provide a brief explanation > > Jackrabbit Oak provides a hierarchical storage in a tree form where > sub trees can be of specific type. > > /content/dam/assets/december/banner.png > - jcr:primaryType = "app:Asset" > + jcr:content > - jcr:primaryType = "app:AssetContent" > + metadata > - status = "published" > - jcr:lastModified = "2009-10-9T21:52:31" > - app:tags = ["properties:orientation/landscape", > "marketing:interest/product"] > - comment = "Image for december launch" > - jcr:title = "December Banner" > + xmpMM:History > + 1 > - softwareAgent = "Adobe Photoshop" > - author = "David" > + renditions (nt:folder) > + original (nt:file) > + jcr:content > - jcr:data = ... > > To access this content Oak provides a NodeStore/NodeState api [1] > which provides way to access the children. The default indexing logic > uses this api to read the content to be indexed and uses index rules > which allow to index content via relative path. For e.g. it would > create a Lucene field status which maps to > jcr:content/metadata/@status (for an index rule for nodes of type > app:Asset). > > This mode of access proved to be slow over remote storage like Mongo > specially for full reindexing case. So we implemented a newer approach > where all content was dumped in a flat file (1 node per line) -> > sorted file and then have a NodeState impl over this flat file. This > changes the way how relative paths work and thus there may be some > potential bugs in newer implementation. > > Hence we need to validate that indexing using new api produces same > index as using the stable api. For a case both index would have a > document for "/content/dam/assets/december/banner.png" but if newer > impl had some bug then it may not have indexed the "status" field > > So I am looking for way where I can map all fieldNames for a given > document. Actual indexed content would be same if both index have > "status" field indexed so we only need to validate fieldnames per > document. Something like > > Thanks for reading all this if you have read so far :) > > Chetan Mehrotra > [1] > https://github.com/apache/jackrabbit-oak/blob/trunk/oak-store-spi/src/main/java/org/apache/jackrabbit/oak/spi/state/NodeState.java > > > On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 2:10 PM, Dawid Weiss <dawid.we...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Only stored fields are kept for each document. If you need to dump >> internal data structures (terms, positions, offsets, payloads, you >> name it) you'll need to dive into the API and traverse all segments, >> then dump the above (and note that document IDs are per-segment and >> will have to be somehow consolidated back to your document IDs). >> >> I don't quite understand the motive here -- the indexes should behave >> identically regardless of the order of input documents; what's the >> point of dumping all this information? >> >> Dawid >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-h...@lucene.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-h...@lucene.apache.org
