[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-1996?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14079008#comment-14079008
]
Thomas Mueller edited comment on OAK-1996 at 7/30/14 7:11 AM:
--------------------------------------------------------------
Do we talk about "order by @jcr:score ascending" or "descending"?
I think "order by @jcr:score desc" is very common, and is needed for many cases
where you don't care about the result set size. Therefore, this "feature" would
unnecessarily hurt such applications (would make them much slower).
I think it's better to fix the applications that rely on getSize instead. To do
that, we could make getSize() return -1 in all cases if a certain setting is
used, to simplify testing the application.
was (Author: tmueller):
Do we talk about "order by @jcr:score ascending" or "descending"?
I think "order by @jcr:score desc" is very common, and is needed for many cases
where you don't care about the result set size.
I think it's better to fix the applications that rely on getSize instead. To do
that, we could make getSize() return -1 in all cases if a certain setting is
used, to simplify testing the application.
> let 'order by @jcr:score' trigger automatic result set size calculation
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: OAK-1996
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-1996
> Project: Jackrabbit Oak
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: query
> Affects Versions: 1.0.3
> Reporter: Torgeir Veimo
>
> It would probably be a good idea to make the "order by @jcr:score"
> suffix trigger automatic result set size calculation in getSize() for
> better backwards compatibility.
> This would make oak more compatible with applications relying on this
> behaviour from jackrabbit 2.8 and earlier.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2#6252)
