Mailing-List: contact oak-dev-help@jackrabbit.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: oak-dev@jackrabbit.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of ianboston@gmail.com designates
 209.85.192.169 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: ianboston@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAGnSx06MYFT-w3c1TaouQbw07L_1FMJuYZA6_c7dmqUbMmp_FA@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAH=Gj-msz1BaBPDx9xMRNu5rts+OQ_6mDV_thFSAk3AgJpYcNA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAOFYJNYshmQ5HFis7QikvNajsZ6GJi4OwPke7Lbfm2QWdMAGyQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAGnSx07XUHBd3WuUgKN0NOwQwS92jLUB+Mq3mo4x0DsCGU1oLA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAH=Gj-njJghC6QZ2ZsmZW0EHAt_KGTqqrguN9UB=7h_5EAiCFw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAGnSx06MYFT-w3c1TaouQbw07L_1FMJuYZA6_c7dmqUbMmp_FA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2013 03:52:44 +0530
Message-ID: 
 <CAH=Gj-=kD0VhAHn2_M4BrThrxiHOaKJkVxXUvdPmOmaaMx04jw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Question about Oak search/query.
From: Ian Boston <ieb@tfd.co.uk>
To: "oak-dev@jackrabbit.apache.org" <oak-dev@jackrabbit.apache.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b6721acd6127404ece5152e

--047d7b6721acd6127404ece5152e
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Friday, December 6, 2013, Tommaso Teofili wrote:

> Hi,
>
> 2013/12/6 Ian Boston <ieb@tfd.co.uk <javascript:;>>
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 6 December 2013 16:12, Tommaso Teofili <tommaso.teofili@gmail.com<javascript:;>
> >
> > wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > 2013/12/6 Jukka Zitting <jukka.zitting@gmail.com <javascript:;>>
> > >
> > >> Hi,
> > >>
> > >> On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 9:36 PM, Ian Boston <ieb@tfd.co.uk<javascript:;>>
> wrote:
> > >> > Will the search index contain access control information or will the
> > >> > search results be filtered as each result is retrieved ?
> > >>
> > >> The results will be filtered after the index lookup. It would be
> > >> possible for a custom search index to do the access checks already
> > >> when building/updating the index, but even in that case the query
> > >> engine would still double-check the access rights (the benefit would
> > >> be to avoid having to retrieve and then discard many inaccessible
> > >> hits).
> > >>
> > >
> > > by the way, probably there's room for some optimization, e.g. very
> simple
> > > idea: exclude paths at depth 1 (children of root node) the principle is
> > not
> > > able to read (which may mean adding them to the query passed to the
> Index
> > > implementation), if any, then you'd always have to apply fine grained
> > ACLs
> > > on the result but maybe excluding some branches from start may help.
> >
> >
> > Ok, thank you, it is as I thought. It may be possible to work around
> > it by adding  some properties to make the result dense.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >>
> > >> > If the number of terms in the query exceeds the number of terms
> > >> > supported by Solr, does the Oak handle that transparently ?
> > >>
> > >> I'm not sure, you'll need to look at the oak-solr indexing code. Or
> > >> perhaps Tommaso who wrote the code can chime in here.
> > >>
> > >
> > > sure.
> > > What limitation are you exactly referring to? Is it the BooleanQuery
> max
> > > clause limit [1]?
> >
> > Yes, I believe its that limit.
> >
> > Do you know how many that is in the version used by Oak ?
> >
>
> At the moment Oak has the Solr dependency with scope provided, version
> 4.1.0 (which uses Lucene 4.1.0) so that one could use from 4.1.x to the
> latest (4.6.0 right now).
> Default is 1024.


Hi,

Thank you. All questions on this thread answered.

Best regards
Ian


>
> Regards,
> Tommaso
>
>
> >
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Tommaso
> > >
> > >
> > > [1] :
> > >
> >
> http://lucene.apache.org/core/4_6_0/core/org/apache/lucene/search/BooleanQuery.TooManyClauses.html
> > >
> > >
> > >> BR,
> > >>
> > >> Jukka Zitting
> > >>
> >
>

--047d7b6721acd6127404ece5152e--