[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-7850?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16674397#comment-16674397
]
Vikas Saurabh edited comment on OAK-7850 at 11/23/18 12:29 PM:
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fixed on trunk at [r1845730|https://svn.apache.org/r1845730].
Backported to 1.8 at [r1847226|https://svn.apache.org/r1847226].
Backported to 1.6 at [r1847250|https://svn.apache.org/r1847250].
was (Author: catholicon):
Fixed on trunk at [r1845730|https://svn.apache.org/r1845730].
Backported to 1.8 at [r1847226|https://svn.apache.org/r1847226].
> Indexes that don't support facets being queried should not participate in
> execution plan
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: OAK-7850
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-7850
> Project: Jackrabbit Oak
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: lucene
> Reporter: Vikas Saurabh
> Assignee: Vikas Saurabh
> Priority: Minor
> Fix For: 1.10, 1.9.11, 1.8.10, 1.6.16
>
>
> Currently we can have a case where a query with facets can be answered by an
> index which can resolve all the constraints but don't have facets configured.
> At times this index might even win the cost war even if there could be an
> alternative index which might report to be more expensive but can answer the
> facets.
> While it's not a good practice to have competing indexes, but index selection
> could have been smarter anyway.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
