> Ard Schrijvers wrote:
> > So, WDOT about indexing properties in seperate lucene 
> Fields, and about
> > possibly indexing more information of one property.
>
> Marcel Reutegger wrote:
> Because the number of distinct property names in jackrabbit 
> is unlimited (think 
> of nt:unstructured nodes), this would lead to a great number 
> of files created by 
> lucene. for each field (this actually changed with version 
> 2.1) lucene creates a 
> separate file. That's basically the reason why I put them all 
> into one field. 
> See [1] and [2].

I already thought I must have been missing something...back in april 2005 I did 
not keep track of JR jira issues :-) In [1], API changes 13 it indeed states 
what you are saying. 

> We should probably re-consider using a 1:1 mapping between 
> jcr property names 
> and lucene fields, since we also got rid of the norms with [3].

I think we have quite some more flexibility with a 1:1 mapping. I do not have 
the birds eye overview of possible complications, but I did locally already 
implement some parts to have a 1:1 mapping. I think it would make some classes 
redundant, and more default lucene queries and classes can be used (things like 
MatchAllQuery and SharedFieldSortComparator might not be needed anymore). If 
others agree on these changes, I think this would validate a new QueryHandler 
because it is quite bit change AFAICS

> 
> > My experience with
> > lucene, is that indexing tactically, eases querying a lot, 
> and gains you lots
> > of performance. So, if you do agree on these changes, which 
> I can try to
> > build in Jackrabbit, then I think these changes might validate a new
> > QueryHandler class to be build aside the old one. WDOT?
> 
> I'm all for making the index better, however I'm a bit 
> skeptical when it comes 
> to virtual fields. This is not just an optimization but a new 
> jackrabbit 
> specific feature that we would introduce.

Yes, I understand your point, and it would indeed be a jackrabbit specific 
feature not backed by jsr...I just wanted to have it :-) Perhaps I'll try to 
add it in a custom IndexingConfigurationImpl. That should't be to hard.

Thanks for your explanations. I have some time to help creating the 1:1 mapping 
if others agree on the change and you need help (or don't have time / want to 
do it :-) ).  
 
regards Ard

[1] http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene/java/tags/lucene_2_1_0/CHANGES.txt

> 
> regards
>   marcel
> 
> [1] 
> http://lucene.apache.org/java/docs/fileformats.html#Normalizat
ion%20Factors
[2] http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCR-106
[3] http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCR-1042

Reply via email to