Response inline On 25 Apr 2010, at 21:32, Alexander Klimetschek wrote: > 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.
I had a feeling it might be something like this. > >> 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. Thanks, I'll give it a try! > >> 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. > Yes, I know, I was just hoping for something to please our UI guys I guess. ;) Sorry for bringing this up again. Regards, Simon
