[SERVER-2104] covered index should support dotted fields Created: 16/Nov/10 Updated: 08/Feb/18 Resolved: 24/Feb/17 |
|
| Status: | Closed |
| Project: | Core Server |
| Component/s: | Querying |
| Affects Version/s: | None |
| Fix Version/s: | 3.5.4 |
| Type: | Improvement | Priority: | Major - P3 |
| Reporter: | Eliot Horowitz (Inactive) | Assignee: | David Storch |
| Resolution: | Done | Votes: | 50 |
| Labels: | None | ||
| Remaining Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Time Spent: | Not Specified | ||
| Original Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Issue Links: |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Backwards Compatibility: | Fully Compatible | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Sprint: | Query 2017-03-06 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Participants: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case: | (copied to CRM) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Comments |
| Comment by Githook User [ 24/Feb/17 ] |
|
Author: {u'username': u'dstorch', u'name': u'David Storch', u'email': u'david.storch@10gen.com'}Message: For example, suppose you have index {"a.b": 1}. The |
| Comment by Githook User [ 24/Feb/15 ] |
|
Author: {u'username': u'kerneljake', u'name': u'Jake Angerman', u'email': u'kerneljake@users.noreply.github.com'}Message: Update query-optimization.txt The word "returned" implies that you can workaround this limitation using a projection, but in fact you cannot (per Conflicts: |
| Comment by Githook User [ 24/Feb/15 ] |
|
Author: {u'username': u'kerneljake', u'name': u'Jake Angerman', u'email': u'kerneljake@users.noreply.github.com'}Message: Update query-optimization.txt The word "returned" implies that you can workaround this limitation using a projection, but in fact you cannot (per Signed-off-by: kay <kay.kim@10gen.com> |
| Comment by Githook User [ 24/Feb/15 ] |
|
Author: {u'username': u'kerneljake', u'name': u'Jake Angerman', u'email': u'kerneljake@users.noreply.github.com'}Message: Update query-optimization.txt The word "returned" implies that you can workaround this limitation using a projection, but in fact you cannot (per |
| Comment by Asya Kamsky [ 15/Jan/15 ] |
|
This ticket is for covered indexes for subdocuments only (not arrays) and the projection for the query must be returning only the indexed subfield (from the subdocument). |
| Comment by Alexander Conrad [ 14/Jul/14 ] |
|
Just wanted to mention that we're still experiencing this issue as of 2.6.3 . Specifically, queries in our system which utilize an index incorporating subdocument fields are never able to be fully covered by the index, which we believe is contributing to a few slowdowns within our system and may eventually necessitate schema redesign. As an aside, it may be helpful for future users to include and emphasize in the official Mongo documentation this limitation of indexing on subdocument fields and its implications. |
| Comment by auto [ 16/Nov/10 ] |
|
Author: {'login': 'erh', 'name': 'Eliot Horowitz', 'email': 'eliot@10gen.com'}Message: safety for Projection's current state |