The scenario:
Person has a OneToOne relationship with Address. The Person is indexed and searches work great when searching for a Person on fields contained in the Person or the Address (person.firstName, address.zipCode, etc all work fine). Now, say the Address zipCode gets updated without going through the Person, yet still within the Hibernate Search environment (some generic Address editor modifies the Address without touching the Person).

The question:
Should searching for a Person on the address.zipCode field return the new value of address.zipCode or the old one that the Person saw when it was first indexed?

From what I can tell, the Person doesn't see the new value of zipCode in any searches until the Person itself gets manually reindexed or a field on the Person changes and is persisted. Looking at the Address index, it has been updated with the new zipCode value.

Even if the object model does not reflect the child to parent relationship (the Java Address object has no idea what it is attached to), it would seem that the Lucene index could still be updated with the new information especially if Store.NO is selected for all of the fields.

What is the intended behavior? Am I missing something, is there a workaround, or a best practice?

Please let me know if what I have described above is unclear and I'd be happy to give additional details.

Thanks!

Hi,

Have you read the online documentation regarding 'Embedded and associated objects' - http://www.hibernate.org/hib_docs/search/reference/en/html_single/#d0e1236? You'll have to make your relationshio bi-directional and use @ContainedIn.

--Hardy

I did run across that, but was hoping there was a way to kick off the indexing without having to reflect the relationship in the object model. Having to reflect the child to parent relationships can get messy if there are several types of objects that attach to that type of child. For instance, Company gets attached to Address, Person gets attached to Address, etc and now there are several collections hanging around in Address that make the object model non-ideal.

It would seem possible to at most use the @ContainedIn annotation in the Address and not need the actual collections. This would look like:
@ContainedIn(Person,Company) or something.

Just curious if this is possible now, in the future, or doesn't make sense.

Thanks for the response thus far!