[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-2852?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14906059#comment-14906059
]
Thomas Mueller commented on OAK-2852:
-------------------------------------
http://svn.apache.org/r1705017 (rename internal methods)
> Query engine: if counter index is not available, cost of traversing is too low
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: OAK-2852
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-2852
> Project: Jackrabbit Oak
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: query
> Reporter: Thomas Mueller
> Assignee: Thomas Mueller
> Labels: performance
> Fix For: 1.3.7
>
>
> If the traversing index is not available (by removing or renaming the node
> /oak:index/counter), the cost of traversing is relatively low. This can cause
> traversals, even thought using a property index (or another index) would be
> better.
> By the way, disabling the counter index (setting the type to a 'disabled')
> alone does still use the estimation in the counter index. This may or may not
> be a good thing.
> Example costs:
> {noformat}
> /jcr:root/content//element(*, cq:Page)[@test='withCounter']
> cost for aggregate lucene is Infinity
> cost for lucene-property is Infinity
> cost for reference is Infinity
> cost for ordered is Infinity
> cost for nodeType is 138.0
> cost for property is Infinity
> cost for traverse is 27100.0
> /jcr:root/content//element(*, cq:Page)[@test='withoutCounter2']
> cost for aggregate lucene is Infinity
> cost for lucene-property is Infinity
> cost for reference is Infinity
> cost for ordered is Infinity
> cost for nodeType is 1504.0
> cost for property is Infinity
> cost for traverse is 2000.0
> {noformat}
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
