On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 5:40 PM, Alex Karasulu <[email protected]> wrote: > So with this comparator missing we were defaulting to the use of lexographic > comparisons on the INTEGER syntax when an index was built on the syntax?
yes, and also if we don't have index. In fact, the comparison was done against the selected values. If an index is built, then I guess that the optimizer would only return values matching the filter (to be checked. in any case, that would be an interesting optimization if it's not already implemented, as we would not have to do another check against the filter) > Makes sense since the index needs to be ordered using the ORDERING > comparator for the integerMatch matching rule. Just curious if this is your > conclusion as well. So far, I can say that the IntegerOrderingComparator is used to compare the filter value with the selected values from the backend. I don't know if those returned values are already matched against the filter by the underlying optimizer... -- Regards, Cordialement, Emmanuel Lécharny www.iktek.com
