I have a constantly growing index, so not updating the index can't be practical...
Going back to the beginning of this thread: when we use the vanilla "*:*"+pagination approach, would the ordering of documents remain stable? ---- the index is dynamic: update/insertion only, no deletion. On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 10:28 AM, Shawn Heisey <s...@elyograg.org> wrote: > On 7/27/2013 11:17 AM, Joe Zhang wrote: > > Thanks for sharing, Roman. I'll look into your code. > > > > One more thought on your suggestion, Shawn. In fact, for the id, we need > > more than "unique" and "rangeable"; we also need some sense of atomic > > values. Your approach might run into risk with a text-based id field, > say: > > > > the id/key has values 'a', 'c', 'f', 'g', and our pagesize is 2. Your > > suggestion would work fine. But with newly added documents, there is no > > guarantee that they are not going to use the key value 'b'. And this new > > document would be missed in your algorithm, right? > > That's why I said that you would either have to not update the index or > ensure that (in your example) a 'b' document never gets added. Because > you can't make that kind of guarantee in most situations, not updating > the index is safer. > > Thanks, > Shawn > >
