[SERVER-4463] Allow covered index use for non-array fields in multi-key index Created: 09/Dec/11 Updated: 06/Dec/22 Resolved: 12/Jan/17 |
|
| Status: | Closed |
| Project: | Core Server |
| Component/s: | Index Maintenance |
| Affects Version/s: | 2.0.1 |
| Fix Version/s: | None |
| Type: | Improvement | Priority: | Major - P3 |
| Reporter: | Chris Scribner | Assignee: | Backlog - Query Team (Inactive) |
| Resolution: | Duplicate | Votes: | 5 |
| Labels: | None | ||
| Remaining Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Time Spent: | Not Specified | ||
| Original Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Issue Links: |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Assigned Teams: |
Query
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Participants: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Description |
|
Please allow this scenario to work for an indexOnly query.
This is for a "full-text" search style feature. Thanks, Chris |
| Comments |
| Comment by David Storch [ 12/Jan/17 ] |
|
As far as I can tell, this is indeed a duplicate of |
| Comment by Jay Cliffe [ 03/Jul/13 ] |
|
It feels related, but regardless it also feels very doable by the index and likely just a behavioral switch without structure modification. </hypothesizing> |
| Comment by Eliot Horowitz (Inactive) [ 23/Feb/12 ] |
|
@brian - this isn't really related to |
| Comment by Brian A. Smith [ 23/Feb/12 ] |
|
Also a pain point for us. Is this related to |