Hi,
in general I think it would be nice to have more control over
the boost values. I'm not sure if we need all the features we
have in Jackrabbit. Some of them are rarely used and not too
useful. I would rather implement the most useful features first
and then wait for feedback if more is needed.
the your configuration proposal we'd now have three different
places where a property can be specified:
- includePropertyNames
- properties
- indexRules
would it be possible to unify those definitions into a single one?
Regards
Marcel
On 05/11/14 05:57, "Chetan Mehrotra" <chetan.mehro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Hi Team,
>
>With OAK-2178 some basic support for boosting has been added. However
>Jackrabbit used to support lots more fine grained boosting [1]. So for
>boost feature to be used in real world scenarios should we aim to
>implement similar support i.e. provide
>
>1. Conditional boosting based on some criteria
>2. Node level boosting based on NodeType
>
>Q.1 - Should we support all or some of that. It would introduce some
>complexity but probably for feature to be useful they need to be
>supported
>
>Q.2 - Config format - If we need to support all (or some of that) we
>would need to decide the index definition format
>
>Configuration Format
>-----------------------------
>
>As documented in [2] the new configuration format proposed and being
>used with Lucene Property Index is like following
>
>"assetIndex":
>{
> "jcr:primaryType":"oak:QueryIndexDefinition",
> "declaringNodeTypes":"app:Asset",
> "includePropertyNames":["title", "type"],
> "type":"lucene",
> "async":"async",
> "fulltextEnabled":false,
> "orderedProps":["jcr:content/jcr:lastModified"]
> "properties": {
> "title" : { "boost" : 2.0 }
> }
>}
>
>This works fine for property index where we would restrict the
>definition to some specific NodeType and specific propertyNames
>
>However for full text index which is more generic we would need to
>have way to distinguish properties for specific nodeTypes
>
>If we need to utilize same format to capture index rules at [2] then
>one way would be to capture nodeType scoped property definitions
>separately
>
>--------------------
>"properties": {
> "title" : { "boost" : 2.0 } /* Unscoped property */
> },
> "indexRules" : {
> "nt:unstructured" : {
> "properties" :{
> "title" : { /* Scoped property */
> "boost" : 1.5
> }
> }
> },
> "nt:file" : {
> "boost" : "2.0",
> "condition" : "@priority = 'high'"
> }
> }
>-----------------------
>
>With current design most of the conditions can be support except one
>involving ancesstor as Oak NodeState model does not allow traversing
>up easily
>
>Thoughts?
>
>Chetan Mehrotra
>[1] http://wiki.apache.org/jackrabbit/IndexingConfiguration
>[2] http://jackrabbit.apache.org/oak/docs/query/lucene.html
