Hi I.P., Sure, it's IGNITE-29191: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-29191
I'm working on a fix now. You can follow the progress on the ticket. Best regards, Reza On Thu, Oct 22, 2026 at 9:17 AM <[email protected]> wrote: > hi Reza > Many thanks for the quick feedback. Could you please provide (when it's > possible) a ticket number for the local IndexQuery setLimit() issue? > Best regards, > I.P. > > ---------- Původní e‑mail ---------- > Od: Reza Taroosheh <[email protected]> > Komu: [email protected] > Kopie: [email protected] > Datum: 21. 10. 2026 23:02:55 > Předmět: Re: Two local-query issues in Apache Ignite 2.x > > Hi I.P., > > Thanks for the reproducers; they made both issues easy to check. > > I'm fairly new to the Ignite code, so a committer may want to > double-check, but here's what I found when I tested your scenarios on > master: > > 1. Local IndexQuery ignores setLimit. You're right, this is a bug, and > it's still on master. A local query with setLimit(3) returns all rows. I'll > file a JIRA ticket and work on a fix. Until then, a workaround could be to > stop reading the cursor after the first N rows. > 2. Local ContinuousQuery in a shared cache group. You're right that > 2.17 and 2.18 have this bug, but IGNITE-28750 already fixed it on master, > and the fix will be in 2.19. I tested your scenario on master for both > ATOMIC and TRANSACTIONAL caches, and the writes now succeed. Until you can > upgrade, your own workaround (keeping that cache out of the shared group) > is the right one. > > Best regards, > Reza > > On Wed, Oct 21, 2026 at 11:36 AM <[email protected]> wrote: > > hi devs > > in the same stream as it was with my previous report here this month > (email-based) about a regression in 2.18.0, it looks like that I might > found another issues with the local query behavior in Ignite 2.x. > > Those are about: > > - local IndexQuery ignores setLimit() property > - local ContinuousQuery in a shared cache breaks writes to the group's > other caches > > I used again an AI to generate a reproducer with a detailed README.md > including a description about expected behavior (btw I verified that the > issues are presented in 2.17.x as well). > > Could somebody please review it if I'm not mistaken with my findings and > if it turns out to be true - assist for further actions with those bugs? > > Many thanks in advance. > > Best regards, > I.P. > > P.S. The reproducer is in the attachment. > >
