On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 18:47:14 +0200, Sanne Grinovero
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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.
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 index
size 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.
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.
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
