[jira] [Updated] (OAK-7254) Indexes with excludedPaths, or includedPaths should not be picked for queries without path
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-7254?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Thomas Mueller updated OAK-7254: Labels: indexingPatch mohit (was: indexingPatch) > Indexes with excludedPaths, or includedPaths should not be picked for queries > without path > -- > > Key: OAK-7254 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-7254 > Project: Jackrabbit Oak > Issue Type: Improvement > Components: lucene, query >Reporter: Thomas Mueller >Assignee: Thomas Mueller >Priority: Critical > Labels: indexingPatch, mohit > Fix For: 1.16.0 > > Attachments: > 0001-OAK-7254-Indexes-with-excludedPaths-or-includedPaths.patch, > OAK-7254-B.patch, OAK-7254-C.patch > > > Queries that don't have a clear path restriction should not use indexes that > have excludedPaths or includedPaths set, except in some exceptional cases (to > be defined). > For example, if a query doesn't have a path restriction, say: > {noformat} > /jcr:root//element(*, nt:base)[@status='RUNNING'] > {noformat} > Then an index that has excludedPaths set (for example to /etc) shouldn't be > used, at least not if a different index is available. Currently it is used > currently, actually in _favor_ of another index, if the property "status" is > commonly used in /etc. Because of that, the index that doesn't have > excludedPath has a higher cost (as it indexes the property "status" in /etc, > and so has more entries for "status", than the index that doesn't index /etc). > The same for includedPaths, in case queryPaths isn't set to the same value(s). -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005)
[jira] [Updated] (OAK-7254) Indexes with excludedPaths, or includedPaths should not be picked for queries without path
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-7254?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Thomas Mueller updated OAK-7254: Attachment: OAK-7254-C.patch > Indexes with excludedPaths, or includedPaths should not be picked for queries > without path > -- > > Key: OAK-7254 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-7254 > Project: Jackrabbit Oak > Issue Type: Improvement > Components: lucene, query >Reporter: Thomas Mueller >Assignee: Thomas Mueller >Priority: Critical > Labels: indexingPatch > Fix For: 1.16.0 > > Attachments: > 0001-OAK-7254-Indexes-with-excludedPaths-or-includedPaths.patch, > OAK-7254-B.patch, OAK-7254-C.patch > > > Queries that don't have a clear path restriction should not use indexes that > have excludedPaths or includedPaths set, except in some exceptional cases (to > be defined). > For example, if a query doesn't have a path restriction, say: > {noformat} > /jcr:root//element(*, nt:base)[@status='RUNNING'] > {noformat} > Then an index that has excludedPaths set (for example to /etc) shouldn't be > used, at least not if a different index is available. Currently it is used > currently, actually in _favor_ of another index, if the property "status" is > commonly used in /etc. Because of that, the index that doesn't have > excludedPath has a higher cost (as it indexes the property "status" in /etc, > and so has more entries for "status", than the index that doesn't index /etc). > The same for includedPaths, in case queryPaths isn't set to the same value(s). -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005)
[jira] [Updated] (OAK-7254) Indexes with excludedPaths, or includedPaths should not be picked for queries without path
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-7254?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Thomas Mueller updated OAK-7254: Attachment: OAK-7254-B.patch > Indexes with excludedPaths, or includedPaths should not be picked for queries > without path > -- > > Key: OAK-7254 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-7254 > Project: Jackrabbit Oak > Issue Type: Improvement > Components: lucene, query >Reporter: Thomas Mueller >Assignee: Thomas Mueller >Priority: Critical > Labels: indexingPatch > Fix For: 1.16.0 > > Attachments: > 0001-OAK-7254-Indexes-with-excludedPaths-or-includedPaths.patch, > OAK-7254-B.patch > > > Queries that don't have a clear path restriction should not use indexes that > have excludedPaths or includedPaths set, except in some exceptional cases (to > be defined). > For example, if a query doesn't have a path restriction, say: > {noformat} > /jcr:root//element(*, nt:base)[@status='RUNNING'] > {noformat} > Then an index that has excludedPaths set (for example to /etc) shouldn't be > used, at least not if a different index is available. Currently it is used > currently, actually in _favor_ of another index, if the property "status" is > commonly used in /etc. Because of that, the index that doesn't have > excludedPath has a higher cost (as it indexes the property "status" in /etc, > and so has more entries for "status", than the index that doesn't index /etc). > The same for includedPaths, in case queryPaths isn't set to the same value(s). -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005)
[jira] [Updated] (OAK-7254) Indexes with excludedPaths, or includedPaths should not be picked for queries without path
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-7254?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Mohit Kataria updated OAK-7254: --- Attachment: 0001-OAK-7254-Indexes-with-excludedPaths-or-includedPaths.patch > Indexes with excludedPaths, or includedPaths should not be picked for queries > without path > -- > > Key: OAK-7254 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-7254 > Project: Jackrabbit Oak > Issue Type: Improvement > Components: lucene, query >Reporter: Thomas Mueller >Assignee: Thomas Mueller >Priority: Critical > Labels: indexingPatch > Fix For: 1.16.0 > > Attachments: > 0001-OAK-7254-Indexes-with-excludedPaths-or-includedPaths.patch > > > Queries that don't have a clear path restriction should not use indexes that > have excludedPaths or includedPaths set, except in some exceptional cases (to > be defined). > For example, if a query doesn't have a path restriction, say: > {noformat} > /jcr:root//element(*, nt:base)[@status='RUNNING'] > {noformat} > Then an index that has excludedPaths set (for example to /etc) shouldn't be > used, at least not if a different index is available. Currently it is used > currently, actually in _favor_ of another index, if the property "status" is > commonly used in /etc. Because of that, the index that doesn't have > excludedPath has a higher cost (as it indexes the property "status" in /etc, > and so has more entries for "status", than the index that doesn't index /etc). > The same for includedPaths, in case queryPaths isn't set to the same value(s). -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005)
[jira] [Updated] (OAK-7254) Indexes with excludedPaths, or includedPaths should not be picked for queries without path
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-7254?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Thomas Mueller updated OAK-7254: Labels: indexingPatch (was: ) > Indexes with excludedPaths, or includedPaths should not be picked for queries > without path > -- > > Key: OAK-7254 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-7254 > Project: Jackrabbit Oak > Issue Type: Improvement > Components: lucene, query >Reporter: Thomas Mueller >Assignee: Thomas Mueller >Priority: Critical > Labels: indexingPatch > Fix For: 1.16.0 > > > Queries that don't have a clear path restriction should not use indexes that > have excludedPaths or includedPaths set, except in some exceptional cases (to > be defined). > For example, if a query doesn't have a path restriction, say: > {noformat} > /jcr:root//element(*, nt:base)[@status='RUNNING'] > {noformat} > Then an index that has excludedPaths set (for example to /etc) shouldn't be > used, at least not if a different index is available. Currently it is used > currently, actually in _favor_ of another index, if the property "status" is > commonly used in /etc. Because of that, the index that doesn't have > excludedPath has a higher cost (as it indexes the property "status" in /etc, > and so has more entries for "status", than the index that doesn't index /etc). > The same for includedPaths, in case queryPaths isn't set to the same value(s). -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005)
[jira] [Updated] (OAK-7254) Indexes with excludedPaths, or includedPaths should not be picked for queries without path
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-7254?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Davide Giannella updated OAK-7254: -- Fix Version/s: (was: 1.14.0) > Indexes with excludedPaths, or includedPaths should not be picked for queries > without path > -- > > Key: OAK-7254 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-7254 > Project: Jackrabbit Oak > Issue Type: Improvement > Components: lucene, query >Reporter: Thomas Mueller >Assignee: Thomas Mueller >Priority: Critical > Fix For: 1.16.0 > > > Queries that don't have a clear path restriction should not use indexes that > have excludedPaths or includedPaths set, except in some exceptional cases (to > be defined). > For example, if a query doesn't have a path restriction, say: > {noformat} > /jcr:root//element(*, nt:base)[@status='RUNNING'] > {noformat} > Then an index that has excludedPaths set (for example to /etc) shouldn't be > used, at least not if a different index is available. Currently it is used > currently, actually in _favor_ of another index, if the property "status" is > commonly used in /etc. Because of that, the index that doesn't have > excludedPath has a higher cost (as it indexes the property "status" in /etc, > and so has more entries for "status", than the index that doesn't index /etc). > The same for includedPaths, in case queryPaths isn't set to the same value(s). -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005)
[jira] [Updated] (OAK-7254) Indexes with excludedPaths, or includedPaths should not be picked for queries without path
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-7254?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Davide Giannella updated OAK-7254: -- Fix Version/s: 1.16.0 > Indexes with excludedPaths, or includedPaths should not be picked for queries > without path > -- > > Key: OAK-7254 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-7254 > Project: Jackrabbit Oak > Issue Type: Improvement > Components: lucene, query >Reporter: Thomas Mueller >Assignee: Thomas Mueller >Priority: Critical > Fix For: 1.14.0, 1.16.0 > > > Queries that don't have a clear path restriction should not use indexes that > have excludedPaths or includedPaths set, except in some exceptional cases (to > be defined). > For example, if a query doesn't have a path restriction, say: > {noformat} > /jcr:root//element(*, nt:base)[@status='RUNNING'] > {noformat} > Then an index that has excludedPaths set (for example to /etc) shouldn't be > used, at least not if a different index is available. Currently it is used > currently, actually in _favor_ of another index, if the property "status" is > commonly used in /etc. Because of that, the index that doesn't have > excludedPath has a higher cost (as it indexes the property "status" in /etc, > and so has more entries for "status", than the index that doesn't index /etc). > The same for includedPaths, in case queryPaths isn't set to the same value(s). -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005)
[jira] [Updated] (OAK-7254) Indexes with excludedPaths, or includedPaths should not be picked for queries without path
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-7254?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Thomas Mueller updated OAK-7254: Sprint: (was: L16) > Indexes with excludedPaths, or includedPaths should not be picked for queries > without path > -- > > Key: OAK-7254 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-7254 > Project: Jackrabbit Oak > Issue Type: Improvement > Components: lucene, query >Reporter: Thomas Mueller >Assignee: Thomas Mueller >Priority: Critical > Fix For: 1.14.0 > > > Queries that don't have a clear path restriction should not use indexes that > have excludedPaths or includedPaths set, except in some exceptional cases (to > be defined). > For example, if a query doesn't have a path restriction, say: > {noformat} > /jcr:root//element(*, nt:base)[@status='RUNNING'] > {noformat} > Then an index that has excludedPaths set (for example to /etc) shouldn't be > used, at least not if a different index is available. Currently it is used > currently, actually in _favor_ of another index, if the property "status" is > commonly used in /etc. Because of that, the index that doesn't have > excludedPath has a higher cost (as it indexes the property "status" in /etc, > and so has more entries for "status", than the index that doesn't index /etc). > The same for includedPaths, in case queryPaths isn't set to the same value(s). -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005)
[jira] [Updated] (OAK-7254) Indexes with excludedPaths, or includedPaths should not be picked for queries without path
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-7254?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Davide Giannella updated OAK-7254: -- Fix Version/s: (was: 1.12.0) > Indexes with excludedPaths, or includedPaths should not be picked for queries > without path > -- > > Key: OAK-7254 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-7254 > Project: Jackrabbit Oak > Issue Type: Improvement > Components: lucene, query >Reporter: Thomas Mueller >Assignee: Thomas Mueller >Priority: Critical > Fix For: 1.14.0 > > > Queries that don't have a clear path restriction should not use indexes that > have excludedPaths or includedPaths set, except in some exceptional cases (to > be defined). > For example, if a query doesn't have a path restriction, say: > {noformat} > /jcr:root//element(*, nt:base)[@status='RUNNING'] > {noformat} > Then an index that has excludedPaths set (for example to /etc) shouldn't be > used, at least not if a different index is available. Currently it is used > currently, actually in _favor_ of another index, if the property "status" is > commonly used in /etc. Because of that, the index that doesn't have > excludedPath has a higher cost (as it indexes the property "status" in /etc, > and so has more entries for "status", than the index that doesn't index /etc). > The same for includedPaths, in case queryPaths isn't set to the same value(s). -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005)
[jira] [Updated] (OAK-7254) Indexes with excludedPaths, or includedPaths should not be picked for queries without path
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-7254?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Davide Giannella updated OAK-7254: -- Fix Version/s: 1.14.0 > Indexes with excludedPaths, or includedPaths should not be picked for queries > without path > -- > > Key: OAK-7254 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-7254 > Project: Jackrabbit Oak > Issue Type: Improvement > Components: lucene, query >Reporter: Thomas Mueller >Assignee: Thomas Mueller >Priority: Critical > Fix For: 1.12.0, 1.14.0 > > > Queries that don't have a clear path restriction should not use indexes that > have excludedPaths or includedPaths set, except in some exceptional cases (to > be defined). > For example, if a query doesn't have a path restriction, say: > {noformat} > /jcr:root//element(*, nt:base)[@status='RUNNING'] > {noformat} > Then an index that has excludedPaths set (for example to /etc) shouldn't be > used, at least not if a different index is available. Currently it is used > currently, actually in _favor_ of another index, if the property "status" is > commonly used in /etc. Because of that, the index that doesn't have > excludedPath has a higher cost (as it indexes the property "status" in /etc, > and so has more entries for "status", than the index that doesn't index /etc). > The same for includedPaths, in case queryPaths isn't set to the same value(s). -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005)
[jira] [Updated] (OAK-7254) Indexes with excludedPaths, or includedPaths should not be picked for queries without path
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-7254?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Davide Giannella updated OAK-7254: -- Fix Version/s: (was: 1.10.0) > Indexes with excludedPaths, or includedPaths should not be picked for queries > without path > -- > > Key: OAK-7254 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-7254 > Project: Jackrabbit Oak > Issue Type: Improvement > Components: lucene, query >Reporter: Thomas Mueller >Assignee: Thomas Mueller >Priority: Critical > Fix For: 1.12 > > > Queries that don't have a clear path restriction should not use indexes that > have excludedPaths or includedPaths set, except in some exceptional cases (to > be defined). > For example, if a query doesn't have a path restriction, say: > {noformat} > /jcr:root//element(*, nt:base)[@status='RUNNING'] > {noformat} > Then an index that has excludedPaths set (for example to /etc) shouldn't be > used, at least not if a different index is available. Currently it is used > currently, actually in _favor_ of another index, if the property "status" is > commonly used in /etc. Because of that, the index that doesn't have > excludedPath has a higher cost (as it indexes the property "status" in /etc, > and so has more entries for "status", than the index that doesn't index /etc). > The same for includedPaths, in case queryPaths isn't set to the same value(s). -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005)
[jira] [Updated] (OAK-7254) Indexes with excludedPaths, or includedPaths should not be picked for queries without path
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-7254?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Davide Giannella updated OAK-7254: -- Fix Version/s: 1.12 > Indexes with excludedPaths, or includedPaths should not be picked for queries > without path > -- > > Key: OAK-7254 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-7254 > Project: Jackrabbit Oak > Issue Type: Improvement > Components: lucene, query >Reporter: Thomas Mueller >Assignee: Thomas Mueller >Priority: Critical > Fix For: 1.10.0, 1.12 > > > Queries that don't have a clear path restriction should not use indexes that > have excludedPaths or includedPaths set, except in some exceptional cases (to > be defined). > For example, if a query doesn't have a path restriction, say: > {noformat} > /jcr:root//element(*, nt:base)[@status='RUNNING'] > {noformat} > Then an index that has excludedPaths set (for example to /etc) shouldn't be > used, at least not if a different index is available. Currently it is used > currently, actually in _favor_ of another index, if the property "status" is > commonly used in /etc. Because of that, the index that doesn't have > excludedPath has a higher cost (as it indexes the property "status" in /etc, > and so has more entries for "status", than the index that doesn't index /etc). > The same for includedPaths, in case queryPaths isn't set to the same value(s). -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005)
[jira] [Updated] (OAK-7254) Indexes with excludedPaths, or includedPaths should not be picked for queries without path
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-7254?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Thomas Mueller updated OAK-7254: Sprint: L16 > Indexes with excludedPaths, or includedPaths should not be picked for queries > without path > -- > > Key: OAK-7254 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-7254 > Project: Jackrabbit Oak > Issue Type: Improvement > Components: lucene, query >Reporter: Thomas Mueller >Assignee: Matt Ryan >Priority: Critical > Fix For: 1.10 > > > Queries that don't have a clear path restriction should not use indexes that > have excludedPaths or includedPaths set, except in some exceptional cases (to > be defined). > For example, if a query doesn't have a path restriction, say: > {noformat} > /jcr:root//element(*, nt:base)[@status='RUNNING'] > {noformat} > Then an index that has excludedPaths set (for example to /etc) shouldn't be > used, at least not if a different index is available. Currently it is used > currently, actually in _favor_ of another index, if the property "status" is > commonly used in /etc. Because of that, the index that doesn't have > excludedPath has a higher cost (as it indexes the property "status" in /etc, > and so has more entries for "status", than the index that doesn't index /etc). > The same for includedPaths, in case queryPaths isn't set to the same value(s). -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005)
[jira] [Updated] (OAK-7254) Indexes with excludedPaths, or includedPaths should not be picked for queries without path
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-7254?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Thomas Mueller updated OAK-7254: Priority: Critical (was: Major) > Indexes with excludedPaths, or includedPaths should not be picked for queries > without path > -- > > Key: OAK-7254 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-7254 > Project: Jackrabbit Oak > Issue Type: Improvement > Components: lucene, query >Reporter: Thomas Mueller >Priority: Critical > Fix For: 1.10 > > > Queries that don't have a clear path restriction should not use indexes that > have excludedPaths or includedPaths set, except in some exceptional cases (to > be defined). > For example, if a query doesn't have a path restriction, say: > {noformat} > /jcr:root//element(*, nt:base)[@status='RUNNING'] > {noformat} > Then an index that has excludedPaths set (for example to /etc) shouldn't be > used, at least not if a different index is available. Currently it is used > currently, actually in _favor_ of another index, if the property "status" is > commonly used in /etc. Because of that, the index that doesn't have > excludedPath has a higher cost (as it indexes the property "status" in /etc, > and so has more entries for "status", than the index that doesn't index /etc). > The same for includedPaths, in case queryPaths isn't set to the same value(s). -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005)