On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 15:47, Simon Gaeremynck <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm aware that according to the spec -1 can be returned (for various > performance issues) and that's all fine. > But I thought you would be able to get the amount of results when the result > set count is smaller then the > resultFetchSize you can specify for SearchIndex in the repository.xml ?
Not necessarily, I believe. This was the case for Jackrabbit 1.x, if I am not mistaken. > As previously stated, an order by gives a correct number, but as it is > possible that we might have huge datasets at some point, > I really don't want to sort them. AFAIK "order by @jcr:score descending" is the default sort order, so I don't think it is way much slower than not sorting. > This is also for doing paging, and we're already doing the "Page 1 of > hundreds." thing, but our UI developers are > complaining that it should be possible to get a count when they only get a > small resultset. Any implementation that would by default count (ie. not having the -1 option) would be slower, or as slow as adding that order by. The -1 is there to make it faster, if you don't need the count. I thought I made that clear in my earlier mail. Regards, Alex -- Alexander Klimetschek [email protected]
