Fix record skipping when querying paginated data across shards #3061
+150
−2
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Signed-off-by: Simeon Widdis <[email protected]>
Swiddis
force-pushed
the
bugfix/pagination-mismatch
branch
from
ba741cd
to
e143507
Compare
Signed-off-by: Simeon Widdis <[email protected]>
Swiddis
force-pushed
the
bugfix/pagination-mismatch
branch
from
3946e6a
to
a8af162
Compare
Swiddis
requested review from
ps48,
kavithacm,
derek-ho,
joshuali925,
dai-chen,
YANG-DB,
rupal-bq,
mengweieric,
vamsi-amazon,
penghuo,
seankao-az,
MaxKsyunz,
Yury-Fridlyand,
anirudha,
forestmvey,
acarbonetto,
GumpacG,
ykmr1224,
LantaoJin and
noCharger
as code owners
penghuo
reviewed
Oct 9, 2024
|
|
||
| @Test | ||
| public void testMultiShardPagesEqualsActualData() throws IOException { | ||
| // A bug made it so when pulling unordered data from an index with multiple shards, data gets lost if the fetchSize |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
pulling unordered data from an index
it is not accurate, it is ordered data (sord by _doc)?
| @@ -189,6 +189,9 @@ public OpenSearchResponse searchWithPIT(Function<SearchRequest, SearchResponse> | |||
| // Set sort field for search_after | |||
| if (this.sourceBuilder.sorts() == null) { | |||
| this.sourceBuilder.sort(DOC_FIELD_NAME, ASC); | |||
| // Workaround to preserve sort location more exactly, | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
if this is workaround, could u add the long-term solution issue?
fddattal
reviewed
Oct 9, 2024
| @@ -189,6 +189,9 @@ public OpenSearchResponse searchWithPIT(Function<SearchRequest, SearchResponse> | |||
| // Set sort field for search_after | |||
| if (this.sourceBuilder.sorts() == null) { | |||
| this.sourceBuilder.sort(DOC_FIELD_NAME, ASC); | |||
| // Workaround to preserve sort location more exactly, | |||
| // see https://github.com/opensearch-project/sql/pull/3061 | |||
| this.sourceBuilder.sort("_id", ASC); | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I see there are a couple places in the code where we sort on doc field.
Can you help me understand why we only need this here?
https://github.com/search?q=repo%3Aopensearch-project%2Fsql+%22DOC_FIELD_NAME%22&type=code
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Description
When pulling unordered data from an index with multiple shards, data gets lost if the fetchSize is not a multiple of the shard count, as the persisted cursor position to continue paging is based on the last seen
_docwhich is duplicated when the primary shard count exceeds 1. This PR currently adds a reproducer for the bug -- finding a fix is still in progress.Related Issues
N/A
Check List
--signoff.By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache 2.0 license.
For more information on following Developer Certificate of Origin and signing off your commits, please check here.