Hello,
Actually, it is OAK-5449. Sorry, I hadn't seen it.
On the other hand, having these two definitions under oak:index (just a
sketch):
- Asset
- evaluatePathRestrictions="true"
- type="lucene"
- includedPath="/nodeA/nodeB"
- indexRules
- my:Asset
- properties
- name="my:title"
- deeperAsset
- evaluatePathRestrictions="true"
- type="lucene"
- includedPath="/nodeA/nodeB/includedC"
- ndexRules
- my:Asset
- properties
- name="my:description"
Made the system to return a cost of 1001 (for both indexes) when performing
these kind of queries:
- SELECT * FROM [my:Asset] AS s WHERE ISDESCENDANTNODE(s,'/nodeA/nodeB')
- SELECT * FROM [my:Asset] AS s WHERE ISDESCENDANTNODE(s,'/nodeA/nodeB')
AND s.[my:title]='title'
- SELECT * FROM [my:Asset] AS s WHERE ISDESCENDANTNODE(s,'/nodeA/nodeB')
AND s.[my:description]='description'
Once cost is assigned (equal for both indexes), it is not clear which index
will be selected.
Regards.
On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 3:50 PM, Chetan Mehrotra <[email protected]>
wrote:
> This looks similar to OAK-5449 (not yet fixed). Can you give a sample
> index definition there and some usecase details which is leading to
> ambiguity in index selection.
>
> In general index selection should not have multiple competing index
> definitions hence interested in knowing setup details
> Chetan Mehrotra
>
>
> On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 1:53 PM, Alvaro Cabrerizo <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I've been checking the code of the IndexPlanner (apache OAK 1.4.1) and I
> > was surprised because the costPerEntryFactor remains 1 in both cases:
> >
> > - when no property indexed or sorted match any property clause or sort
> > clause from the query
> > - when only an indexed or sorted property matches a property clause or
> > sort clause from the query
> >
> > Although this piece of code avoids a division by zero (see
> > org.apache.jackrabbit.oak.plugins.index.lucene.IndexPlanner lines
> 201-203)
> >
> > if (costPerEntryFactor == 0){
> > costPerEntryFactor = 1;
> > }
> >
> > It also avoids the boosting of indexes that match 1 query clause (or in
> > other words, it doesn't penalize indexes that don't match any clause).
> I'm
> > thinking about opening an issue. Although it is for the long-tern,
> actually
> > I would like to know which index is selected in case that more than one
> had
> > the same cost.
> >
> > Regards.
>
