quick! > > The reason I used jcr:like is because I need to do a normal > find, not the full text search. Like if the property value is > "divided", when I search for keyword "div", if I use > "jcr:like", "divided" will be matched, but jcr:contain won't. >
jcr:contains can handle lucene syntax, so also the wildcard query you are suggesting. But, at [1] you can already see that a wildcard prefix will be very expensive (though depends on the number of different values you have for a property). For jcr:like a prefix query a even *much* more expensive than for jcr:contains. I am though quite sure you can solve the thing you want to achieve differently. What is the usecase? -Ard [1] http://lucene.zones.apache.org:8080/hudson/job/Lucene-Nightly/javadoc/or g/apache/lucene/search/WildcardQuery.html ps the link seems to be down at the moment of this writing > Juan > -- > View this message in context: > http://www.nabble.com/does-jcr%3Alike-has-a-wildcard-like-jcr% > 3Acontain--tp15143136p15144614.html > Sent from the Jackrabbit - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > >
