On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 2:04 PM, Sergi Vladykin <[email protected]> wrote:
> Not necessary, you can configure to have either sorted index or hash index > or both. > In the last case as far as I understand optimizer just will pick up hash > index for > equality conditions because it will have lower cost. > > The only thing I'm currently not sure of is how to add this to > configuration > (our indexed types config already looks like piece of crap, don't want to > complicate it even more). > I think index type should be specified at the annotation level. As far as configuring query metadata in XML, I agree with you, we should clean up the design. > > Sergi > > 2015-09-18 19:05 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan <[email protected]>: > > > Sergi, > > > > Does it mean that field "a" will now have 2 indexes, hash and sorted? > > > > D. > > > > On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 4:01 PM, Sergi Vladykin < > [email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > Guys, > > > > > > It seems that for simple equality queries like > > > > > > SELECT * FROM x WHERE a = ? > > > > > > it is more effective to use hash indexes which do not even need to be > > > snapshotable. > > > I think it will be easy to implement one based on ConcurrentHashMap. > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > Sergi > > > > > >
