OK thanks I thought so too. I'm going to give it a whirl.
-Mike
On 12/01/2011 03:42 PM, Jason Hunter wrote:
> 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
>
_______________________________________________
General mailing list
[email protected]
http://developer.marklogic.com/mailman/listinfo/general
