Hardy Ferentschik
Wed, 23 Apr 2008 00:24:15 -0700
Yes right but I don't see how this is worse than searching for "foo:bar OR foo:NULL-KEYWORD", just some less ambiguity. If you just want to search for null fields, fooIsNull:true
It is not much worse, but as less intuative. One has to know that if @IndexNullMarker is added another field fooIsNull is added. It's less intuative. On the other hand would
actually work without ambiguities. I guess one would have to RTFM.
If you just add one of the fields (foo or fooIsNull) at the time we are fine. It could be more of an issue if we have always a fooIsNull:false for consistency as you mentioned as well.Interesting I wasn't expecting the index to grow as I remove a Field and replace it with another; I've made a test for this: on 10,000,000 docs having 50% a random text value (chosen from 800 constants to limit total string tokens) and 50% nulls the indexsize grows by 3.5% compared to no null values (same docs and 800 consts).I wasn't expecting any growth above some bytes, anyway I think 3.5% is quite good.
Nevertheless, I think your idea is still better than the straight forward approach. It just comes with
more complexity usage wise. --Hardy _______________________________________________ hibernate-dev mailing list hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev