Hi,

Using "like" with a regular property index will not work well. What it
does is using the index as a "cq:tags is not null", so it will traverse
all entries.

What you could try is using a Lucene property index, in combination with
"like".

Regards,
Thomas


On 14/10/16 17:29, "rachna" <rachana.me...@telegraph.co.uk> wrote:

>Thanks Clay & Thomas.
>
>Taking a step back from our problem has helped to look at it in a
>different
>way.
>
>The tag property also stores the values in a specific format that show the
>tree structure.
>
>cq:tags
>- location:europe
>- type:waterfalls
>
>Therefore instead of traversing the repository to identify the descendants
>of these tags, we could use a LIKE query.
>
>e.g. SELECT * FROM [cq:PageContent] AS b WHERE ISDESCENDANTNODE(b,
>[/content/guides]) AND ([cq:tags] LIKE 'location:europe%' OR [cq:tags]
>LIKE
>'type:waterfalls%') ORDER BY [cq:lastModified]
>
>However, since our repository contains a large number of items that match
>this criteria, we start to see warnings about traversing the index.
>
>org.apache.jackrabbit.oak.plugins.index.property.strategy.ContentMirrorSto
>reStrategy
>Traversed 210000 nodes (210164 index entries) using index jcr:primaryType
>with filter Filter(query=SELECT * FROM [cq:PageContent] AS b WHERE
>ISDESCENDANTNODE(b, [/content/guides]) AND ([cq:tags] LIKE
>'location:europe%' OR [cq:tags] LIKE 'type:waterfalls%') ORDER BY
>[cq:lastModified], path=/content/guides//*, property=[cq:tags=[is not
>null]])
>
>Instead, I created a lucene index that indexes the cq:tags (/w full text)
>and cq:lastModified (/w ordered support) property.
>
>e.g. SELECT [jcr:path] FROM [cq:PageContent] AS b WHERE
>ISDESCENDANTNODE(b,
>[/content/guides]) AND (CONTAINS([cq:tags], 'location:europe') OR
>CONTAINS([cq:tags], 'type:waterfalls')) ORDER BY [cq:lastModified]
>
>That seems to be much faster than using a property index and should solve
>most of the issues that we might have (hopefully avoiding creating a new
>index).
>
>Is there any support with the lucene index to use something like
>STARTSWITH
>rather CONTAINS?
>
>The maxClauseCount configuration parameter introduced the soft limit of
>1024
>which is part of Jackrabbit 2.
>We have been attempting to move to oak however our progress has been slow
>due to repository inconsistencies.
>I realise this value is configurable however constantly increasing it
>doesn't sound the right thing to do.
>
>Thanks,
>Rachna
>
>
>
>--
>View this message in context:
>http://jackrabbit.510166.n4.nabble.com/Custom-index-type-tp4665031p4665121
>.html
>Sent from the Jackrabbit - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Reply via email to