jackrabbit-oak-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Amit.. Gupta." <amitg...@adobe.com>
Subject RE: Using Lucene indexes for property queries
Date Mon, 14 Apr 2014 17:54:52 GMT
> In theory, the Lucene index could be used quite easily. As far as I 
> see, we would only need to change the cost function of the Lucene 
> index (return a reasonable cost even if there is no full-text constraint).

+1 for allowing use of lucene indexes for property constraint, there advanced search use cases
i.e. support GQL like search queries. Then some applications allow customers to perform ad
hoc searches based on custom properties..
In such cases, searchable properties are not known in advance. A small lag should be acceptable
in such cases.

Regards,
Amit


-----Original Message-----
From: Chetan Mehrotra [mailto:chetan.mehrotra@gmail.com] 
Sent: 14 April 2014 14:48
To: oak-dev@jackrabbit.apache.org
Subject: Re: Using Lucene indexes for property queries

> Should we let the
user decide whether it's OK to use an asynchronous index for this case

+1 for that. It has been the case with JR2 (I may be wrong here). And
when user is searching for say some asset via DAM in Adobe CQ then he would be ok if result
is not for latest head. A small lag should be acceptable. This would enable scenarios where
traversal would be too costly and Lucene can still be used to provide required results in
a lot lesser time.
Chetan Mehrotra


On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 2:33 PM, Thomas Mueller <mueller@adobe.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In theory, the Lucene index could be used quite easily. As far as I 
> see, we would only need to change the cost function of the Lucene 
> index (return a reasonable cost even if there is no full-text constraint).
>
> One problem might be: the Lucene index is asynchronous, and the user 
> might expect the result to be up-to-date. The user knows this already 
> for full-text constraints, but not for property constraints. Should we 
> let the user decide whether it's OK to use an asynchronous index for this case?
> For example by specifying an option in the query (for example similar 
> to the "order by", at the very end of the query, "option async")? So a 
> query that can use an asynchronous index would look like this:
>
>   //*[@prop = 'x'] option async
> or
>   //*[@prop = 'x'] order by @otherProperty option async or
>   select [jcr:path] from [nt:base] as a where [prop] > 1 option async
>
>
> Regards,
> Thomas
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 14/04/14 06:54, "Chetan Mehrotra" <chetan.mehrotra@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Hi,
>>
>>In JR2 I believe Lucene was used for all types of queries and not only
>>for full text searches. In Oak we have our own PropertyIndexes for
>>handling queries involving constraints on properties. This I believe
>>provides a more accurate result as its built on top of mvcc support so
>>results obtained are consistent with session state/revision.
>>
>>However this involves creating a index for property to be queried. And
>>the way currently property indexes are stored they consume quite a bit
>>of state (at least in DocumentNodeStore). In comparison Lucene stores
>>the index content in quite compact form.
>>
>>In quite a few cases (like user choice based query builder) it might
>>not be known in advance which property the user would use. As we
>>already have all string property indexed in Lucene. Would it be
>>possible to use Lucene for performing such queries? Or allow the user
>>to choose which types of index he wants to use depending on the
>>usecase.
>>
>>Chetan Mehrotra
>

Mime
View raw message