Jim Fulton wrote at 2005-5-27 08:29 -0400: > ... >> Then, we probably do something wrong... > >That's always a possibility. I think what we are doing is >pretty reasonable. Perhaps you have other suggestions.
I think we need more control over what modifications trigger what reindexing events. I am not yet sure about the best (or even a good) approach. >>>... >> Even computing the value for a text index (without any change >> to the index itself) can be very expensive: it may >> include expensive fetching of a large object, >> an expensive conversion (text extraction), expensive splitting >> and comparison to what is currently indexes. > >Perhaps. It depends a lot on the application. > >I suggest that, if this optimization is important, it might >be much easier and cleaner to make text extracttion and comparison >cheap, rather than, trying to solve the problem with a more complex >event model. You cannot make text extraction cheap (as it handles potentially large data). You could make comparison cheap -- e.g. by storing last modification dates and comparing them. But, I fear, you would just move the problem to when changing the modification date. > ... >I think it would be very difficult to come up with rules >for deciding which events might effect a text value and which would not. >For example, I can easily imagine objects who's searchable text >depends on their workflow state. Indeed, such objects are easily imaginable. But usually, it is not the case. The problem is obviously difficult -- not solvable with a trivial event model and trivial reindexing dispatching. -- Dieter _______________________________________________ Zope3-dev mailing list [email protected] Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
