[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-6333?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16044158#comment-16044158
 ] 

Thomas Mueller commented on OAK-6333:
-------------------------------------

I think that's a reasonable approach: switch trunk by default, ability to 
switch on branch but don't change default there.

Not sure if it's needed to switch on a per-index basis, or whether it's enough 
to use a global switch (system property or new query configuration).

> IndexPlanner should use actual entryCount instead of limiting it to 1000
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: OAK-6333
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-6333
>             Project: Jackrabbit Oak
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: lucene
>            Reporter: Chetan Mehrotra
>            Assignee: Chetan Mehrotra
>             Fix For: 1.8
>
>
> Currently IndexPlanner uses following logic for estimating the entryCount
> # If the index has fulltext indexing enable then 
> ## If {{entryCount}} value is defined then min(entryCount, numOfDocs)
> ## If not then use the {{numDocs}} i.e. actual entry count
> # If the index is pure property index i.e. none of the property definitions 
> have {{analyzed}} set to true
> ## If {{entryCount}} value is defined then min(entryCount, numOfDocs)
> ## Else Take min(1000, numDocs)
> Revisiting the logic for #2 it appears in 1.0.x days (OAK-2200) we capped it 
> to 1000 because cost estimation for property indexes was inaccurate (they 
> used to report low values causing lucene index to loose). 
> With support for Counters the cost estimation for property index has improved 
> and now we should remove this capping and let it use numDocs.
> One area where it causes issue is when we have two indexes where one is 
> superset of other. For e.g. /oak:index/asset and /content/en/ 
> /oak:index/asset where both have some matching properties. Logically if query 
> can be handled by sub index then it should get picked but currently either of 
> them can be picked making query plan undeterministic



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.15#6346)

Reply via email to