I think that'll work fine.
-jh-
On Dec 1, 2011, at 11:23 AM, Mike Sokolov wrote:
> I've found that cts:element-values() is *much* faster when you don't use
> a query to filter. For example,
>
> cts:element-values (xs:QName("foo"), "a")
>
> is 25x faster than
>
> cts:element-values (xs:QName("foo"), "a",
> cts:element-value-query(xs:QName("bar"), "baz"))
>
> when every document indexed by foo in fact has bar=baz, ie when the
> query is essentially a no-op.
>
> Consequently, we're taking what used to be a bunch of large range
> indexes and breaking them up into a lot of smaller range indexes, each
> of which we can query independently (faster).
>
> What I'm wondering is if anybody would care to speculate on whether
> having a large number of small(er) indexes will pose some other
> performance problem. Presumably at least some of the keys will be
> shared across these indexes, but the values (the fragment/document
> references) should not, so overall storage should be only slightly larger?
>
> --
> Michael Sokolov
> Engineering Director
> www.ifactory.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> General mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://developer.marklogic.com/mailman/listinfo/general
_______________________________________________
General mailing list
[email protected]
http://developer.marklogic.com/mailman/listinfo/general
