[jira] [Closed] (OAK-7254) Indexes with excludedPaths, or includedPaths should not be picked for queries without path

["Julian Reschke (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>]

     [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-7254?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]

Julian Reschke closed OAK-7254.
-------------------------------

> Indexes with excludedPaths, or includedPaths should not be picked for queries without path
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: OAK-7254
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-7254
>             Project: Jackrabbit Oak
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: lucene, query
>            Reporter: Thomas Mueller
>            Assignee: Thomas Mueller
>            Priority: Critical
>              Labels: indexingPatch, mohit
>             Fix For: 1.16.0
>
>         Attachments: 0001-OAK-7254-Indexes-with-excludedPaths-or-includedPaths.patch, OAK-7254-B.patch, OAK-7254-C.patch
>
>
> Queries that don't have a clear path restriction should not use indexes that have excludedPaths or includedPaths set, except in some exceptional cases (to be defined).
> For example, if a query doesn't have a path restriction, say:
> {noformat}
> /jcr:root//element(*, nt:base)[@status='RUNNING']
> {noformat}
> Then an index that has excludedPaths set (for example to /etc) shouldn't be used, at least not if a different index is available. Currently it is used currently, actually in _favor_ of another index, if the property "status" is commonly used in /etc. Because of that, the index that doesn't have excludedPath has a higher cost (as it indexes the property "status" in /etc, and so has more entries for "status", than the index that doesn't index /etc).
> The same for includedPaths, in case queryPaths isn't set to the same value(s).



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.14#76016)