[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-5858?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15887626#comment-15887626
]
Thomas Mueller commented on OAK-5858:
-------------------------------------
[~chetanm] so here is a case where the current logic of the Lucene index is
very problematic.
> Lucene index may return the wrong result if path is excluded
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: OAK-5858
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-5858
> Project: Jackrabbit Oak
> Issue Type: Bug
> Reporter: Thomas Mueller
> Fix For: 1.8
>
>
> If a query uses a Lucene index that has "excludedPaths", the query result may
> be wrong (not contain all matching nodes). This is case even if there is a
> property index available for the queried property. Example:
> {noformat}
> Indexes:
> /oak:index/resourceType/type = "property"
> /oak:index/lucene/type = "lucene"
> /oak:index/lucene/excludedPaths = ["/etc"]
> /oak:index/lucene/indexRules/nt:base/properties/resourceType
> Query:
> /jcr:root/etc//*[jcr:like(@resourceType, "x%y")]
> Index cost:
> cost for /oak:index/resourceType is 1602.0
> cost for /oak:index/lucene is 1001.0
> Result:
> (empty)
> Expected result:
> /etc/a
> /etc/b
> {noformat}
> Here, the lucene index is picked, even thought the query explicitly queries
> for /etc, and the lucene index has this path excluded.
> I think the lucene index should not be picked in case the index does not
> match the query path.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.15#6346)
