Hi Martin,
sorry for the late reply, I found this email of yours in my spam folder.
On 12 August 2015 at 16:43, Martin Braun wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> I guess it's useful in some edge cases where the user wants to search
> different entities with one query. As long as everything is in the same index
> s
On 13 August 2015 at 08:33, Gunnar Morling wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 2015-08-12 17:46 GMT+02:00 Sanne Grinovero :
>> That's an interesting proposal, as index sharing inherently implies
>> that fields on different types shall not have conflicting mapping
>> (i.e. don't reuse the same field name for a differ
Thanks for the feedback, Andrej!
What kind of sharing is this, the one between types of one inheritance
hierarchy we discussed or between unrelated types? In case of the
latter, what's the reason that you need this? Would be interested to
learn about the use case.
--Gunnar
2015-08-12 23:17 GMT+
Hi,
2015-08-12 17:46 GMT+02:00 Sanne Grinovero :
> That's an interesting proposal, as index sharing inherently implies
> that fields on different types shall not have conflicting mapping
> (i.e. don't reuse the same field name for a different type).
>
> By default we don't share indexes across unr
Hi Gunnar,
> Should we consider to drop this feature in HS 6?
-1, we use it, I think, in at least 3 places in our application.
Removing it would make our code more complicated.
Best regards,
Andrej Golovnin
___
hibernate-dev mailing list
hibernate-dev@
That's an interesting proposal, as index sharing inherently implies
that fields on different types shall not have conflicting mapping
(i.e. don't reuse the same field name for a different type).
By default we don't share indexes across unrelated types, but also *by
default* subtypes are indexed in
Hi,
I guess it's useful in some edge cases where the user wants to search
different entities with one query. As long as everything is in the same index
scoring is a lot easier (I don't know if it even works otherwise). I guess
that could be done by indexing a common supertype, but sometimes that'
