[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-6735?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16235420#comment-16235420
]
Vikas Saurabh edited comment on OAK-6735 at 11/2/17 9:20 PM:
-------------------------------------------------------------
bq. Also, it looks like properties with name ending with "_facet" have a
special meaning. What is a customer uses such property names... don't we have a
good escape mechanism (for example using the ":" prefix)?
Unfortunately, we don't have a good escape mechanism while naming fields - and
changing it now means migration impacts. That's why we're still tolerating it
:-/.
bq. is "IndexStatistics.failReadingFieldJcrTitle" just used for testing the
"fail reading field"?
Yes, I tried to play around a lot to make a wrapping IndexReader which would
fail on demand, but each attempt required a lot of code to implement which
seemed wrong to me. That said, I'd much rather prefer to somehow use an
on-demand-failing-index-reader.
bq. In that case, I would clearly mark this as a facility to simplify
testing... As it is now, it is misleading.
So, maybe fail for field name like "synthetically-falliable-field" be ok? (done
in trunk at [r1814108|https://svn.apache.org/r1814108]).
was (Author: catholicon):
bq. Also, it looks like properties with name ending with "_facet" have a
special meaning. What is a customer uses such property names... don't we have a
good escape mechanism (for example using the ":" prefix)?
Unfortunately, we don't have a good escape mechanism while naming fields - and
changing it now means migration impacts. That's why we're still tolerating it
:-/.
bq. is "IndexStatistics.failReadingFieldJcrTitle" just used for testing the
"fail reading field"?
Yes, I tried to play around a lot to make a wrapping IndexReader which would
fail on demand, but each attempt required a lot of code to implement which
seemed wrong to me. That said, I'd much rather prefer to somehow use an
on-demand-failing-index-reader.
bq. In that case, I would clearly mark this as a facility to simplify
testing... As it is now, it is misleading.
So, maybe fail for field name like "synthetically-falliable-field" be ok?
> Lucene Index: improved cost estimation by using document count per field
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: OAK-6735
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-6735
> Project: Jackrabbit Oak
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: lucene, query
> Affects Versions: 1.7.4
> Reporter: Thomas Mueller
> Assignee: Vikas Saurabh
> Priority: Major
> Fix For: 1.8, 1.7.11
>
> Attachments: IndexReadPattern.txt, LuceneIndexReadPattern.java,
> OAK-6735.patch
>
>
> The cost estimation of the Lucene index is somewhat inaccurate because (by
> default) it just used the number of documents in the index (as of Oak 1.7.4
> by default, due to OAK-6333).
> Instead, it should use the number of documents for the given fields (the
> minimum, if there are multiple fields with restrictions).
> Plus divided by the number of restrictions (as we do now already).
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.4.14#64029)
