[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCR-3513?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13573601#comment-13573601
]
Alex Parvulescu commented on JCR-3513:
--------------------------------------
Tom,
I initially thought this may be caused by JCR-3407 where I added a the
"setRewriteMethod(CONSTANT_SCORE_BOOLEAN_QUERY_REWRITE)" option to the
WildcardQuery but this may not be the same thing you are experiencing.
I took a quick look at the RangeQuery and the changes you are referring to come
from JCR-2415 (lucene 3.0.3 upgrade) [0].
So I think it is interesting to look at a stack-trace of one of your tests, if
there are any available, to make sure we're both affected by the same problem,
and a possible fix covers everything.
[0]
https://fisheye6.atlassian.com/browse/jackrabbit/trunk/jackrabbit-core/src/main/java/org/apache/jackrabbit/core/query/lucene/WildcardQuery.java?r2=1371065&r1=1181086
> Slower range query execution
> ----------------------------
>
> Key: JCR-3513
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCR-3513
> Project: Jackrabbit Content Repository
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Affects Versions: 2.4.3
> Reporter: Tom Quellenberg
> Assignee: Alex Parvulescu
>
> After switching from JachRabbit 1.6.4 to 2.4.3 we experienced extreme slow
> query executions. All range query on date fields are often 10 times slow than
> before.
> In our repositories more than 1 million documents are stored which all
> contain for example a creation date. Typical queries look like this:
> //element(*, sophora-nt:story)[@sophora:creationDate > ...]
> JackRabbit has its own RangeQuery implementation which is used when Lucene
> throws a TooManyBooleanClauses-exception (and in some other situations, too).
> This worked well in Jackrabbit 1.6. In newer versions a different Lucene
> library is used which never throws TooManyBooleanClauses exceptions. Instead,
> is has its own fall-back in situations where a BooleanQuery does not work.
> This fall-back with a MultiTermQueryWrapperFilter seams to us much slower
> than the fall-back implementation in JackRabbit (Does anybody know the
> reason?). It is the same situation in Jackrabbit 2.6.0 (with Lucene 3.6.0)
> We patched org.apache.jackrabbit.core.query.lucene.RangeQuery to never use
> org.apache.lucene.search.TermRangeQuery but always use the JackRabbit
> implementation. This leads to query executions as fast as in older Jackrabbit
> versions.
> Do other people experience this problem? Are there any drawbacks using always
> the JackRabbit implementation for range queries?
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
