Hi, On 6 December 2013 16:12, Tommaso Teofili <tommaso.teof...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > 2013/12/6 Jukka Zitting <jukka.zitt...@gmail.com> > >> Hi, >> >> On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 9:36 PM, Ian Boston <i...@tfd.co.uk> wrote: >> > Will the search index contain access control information or will the >> > search results be filtered as each result is retrieved ? >> >> The results will be filtered after the index lookup. It would be >> possible for a custom search index to do the access checks already >> when building/updating the index, but even in that case the query >> engine would still double-check the access rights (the benefit would >> be to avoid having to retrieve and then discard many inaccessible >> hits). >> > > by the way, probably there's room for some optimization, e.g. very simple > idea: exclude paths at depth 1 (children of root node) the principle is not > able to read (which may mean adding them to the query passed to the Index > implementation), if any, then you'd always have to apply fine grained ACLs > on the result but maybe excluding some branches from start may help.
Ok, thank you, it is as I thought. It may be possible to work around it by adding some properties to make the result dense. > > >> >> > If the number of terms in the query exceeds the number of terms >> > supported by Solr, does the Oak handle that transparently ? >> >> I'm not sure, you'll need to look at the oak-solr indexing code. Or >> perhaps Tommaso who wrote the code can chime in here. >> > > sure. > What limitation are you exactly referring to? Is it the BooleanQuery max > clause limit [1]? Yes, I believe its that limit. Do you know how many that is in the version used by Oak ? > > Regards, > Tommaso > > > [1] : > http://lucene.apache.org/core/4_6_0/core/org/apache/lucene/search/BooleanQuery.TooManyClauses.html > > >> BR, >> >> Jukka Zitting >>
