Vikas Saurabh commented on OAK-6535:

Discussed a few ideas around this with [~chetanm] offline:
# unique index pruning can probably be done by tying into what's being added 
into lucene structure (basically prune data from prop-index-tree which is added 
to lucene)... for non-unique ones, throwing away buckets at index cycle is 
still easier.
# instead of each non-unique-prop-def having content-mirror-store-strategy 
buckets, we can have a single content-mirror-store-strategy at index level 
which can index values for each non-unique-property
## this helps in purge logic a bit
## assumes that values for multiple non-unique-prop changes would be more or 
less disjoint between consecutive async indexing cycle runs
## while discussing this idea, it seemed that it would answer the open points 
on wiki \[0] - but that's incorrect. Answering {{a='b' AND c='d'}} can't be 
done by this idea.

[~chetanm], regarding point 2.3 above: assuming number of changes between 
consecutive async cycle runs remain moderate in the sense that there aren't 
HUGE FLAT structure: maybe we can have sorted traversal over content tree (on 
node-name) and hence solve the {{AND}} by skipping matches which aren't found 
in all the cursors. 


> Synchronous Lucene Property Indexes
> -----------------------------------
>                 Key: OAK-6535
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-6535
>             Project: Jackrabbit Oak
>          Issue Type: New Feature
>          Components: lucene, property-index
>            Reporter: Chetan Mehrotra
>            Assignee: Chetan Mehrotra
>             Fix For: 1.8
> Oak 1.6 added support for Lucene Hybrid Index (OAK-4412). That enables near 
> real time (NRT) support for Lucene based indexes. It also had a limited 
> support for sync indexes. This feature aims to improve that to next level and 
> enable support for sync property indexes.
> More details at 
> https://wiki.apache.org/jackrabbit/Synchronous%20Lucene%20Property%20Indexes

This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA

Reply via email to