[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-7109?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16312691#comment-16312691
 ] 

Dirk Rudolph commented on OAK-7109:
-----------------------------------

{quote}
I have a very pessimistic view that we should fail such queries - I mean it's 
better to fail and allow for right index def than giving incorrect results.
{quote}
+1

> rep:facet returns wrong results for complex queries
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: OAK-7109
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-7109
>             Project: Jackrabbit Oak
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: lucene
>    Affects Versions: 1.6.7
>            Reporter: Dirk Rudolph
>              Labels: facet
>         Attachments: facetsInMultipleRoots.patch, 
> restrictionPropagationTest.patch
>
>
> eComplex queries in that case are queries, which are passed to lucene not 
> containing all original constraints. For example queries with multiple path 
> restrictions like:
> {code}
> select [rep:facet(simple/tags)] from [nt:base] as a where contains(a.[*], 
> 'ipsum') and (isdescendantnode(a,'/content1') or 
> isdescendantnode(a,'/content2'))
> {code}
> In that particular case the index planer gives ":fulltext:ipsum" to lucene 
> even though the index supports evaluating path constraints. 
> As counting the facets happens on the raw result of lucene, the returned 
> facets are incorrect. For example having the following content 
> {code}
> /content1/test/foo
>  + text = lorem ipsum
>  - simple/
>   + tags = tag1, tag2
> /content2/test/bar
>  + text = lorem ipsum
>  - simple/
>   + tags = tag1, tag2
> /content3/test/bar
>  + text = lorem ipsum
>  - simple/
>    + tags = tag1, tag2
> {code}
> the expected result for the dimensions of simple/tags and the query above is 
> - tag1: 2
> - tag2: 2
> as the result set is 2 results long and all documents are equal. The actual 
> result set is 
> - tag1: 3
> - tag2: 3
> as the path constraint is not handled by lucene.
> To workaround that the only solution that came to my mind is building the 
> [disjunctive normal 
> form|https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disjunctive_normal_form] of my complex 
> query and executing a query for each of the disjunctive statements. As this 
> is expanding exponentially its only a theoretical solution, nothing for 
> production. 



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.4.14#64029)

Reply via email to