[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-14413?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17261464#comment-17261464
]
John Gallagher commented on SOLR-14413:
---------------------------------------
Thanks for reporting [~hossman]. I didn't know about the "last definition
wins" semantics.
I removed the last line of that configuration: [^SOLR-14413.testfix.patch]
I don't believe we need to switch the handler name, because it should not
affect other tests unless they pass the sleep parameter explicitly.
I reran the test using the parameters in your log, and it passed.
{code:java}
./gradlew test --tests CursorPagingTest.testTimeAllowed
-Dtests.seed=4D63CDC87865C2E0 -Dtests.slow=true -Dtests.badapples=true
-Dtests.locale=en-MO -Dtests.timezone=Africa/Asmara -Dtests.asserts=true
-Dtests.file.encoding=UTF-8
> Task :solr:core:test
:solr:core:test (SUCCESS): 1 test(s)
The slowest tests (exceeding 500 ms) during this run:
2.12s CursorPagingTest.testTimeAllowed (:solr:core)
BUILD SUCCESSFUL in 4m 13s
263 actionable tasks: 263 executed
{code}
The test failure was this line:
[https://github.com/apache/lucene-solr/blob/a7391fb73ef9169c58bc20291fdcefcbd47fa0a8/solr/core/src/test/org/apache/solr/CursorPagingTest.java#L571]
{{assertTrue("Should have experienced at least one partialResult", partialCount
> 0);}}
I had added DelayingSearchComponent to make partial results _more_ likely
(well, 100% likely, I was hoping), not less.
I guess my own machine was too slow to complete an initial query without
partial results. It didn't need the aid of the artificially injected delay.
Apologies for the flakiness you experienced
John
> allow timeAllowed and cursorMark parameters
> -------------------------------------------
>
> Key: SOLR-14413
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-14413
> Project: Solr
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: search
> Reporter: John Gallagher
> Assignee: Mike Drob
> Priority: Minor
> Fix For: 8.8, master (9.0)
>
> Attachments: SOLR-14413-bram.patch, SOLR-14413-jg-update1.patch,
> SOLR-14413-jg-update2.patch, SOLR-14413-jg-update3.patch, SOLR-14413.patch,
> SOLR-14413.testfix.patch, Screen Shot 2020-10-23 at 10.08.26 PM.png, Screen
> Shot 2020-10-23 at 10.09.11 PM.png, image-2020-08-18-16-56-41-736.png,
> image-2020-08-18-16-56-59-178.png, image-2020-08-21-14-18-36-229.png,
> timeallowed_cursormarks_results.txt
>
> Time Spent: 2h
> Remaining Estimate: 0h
>
> Ever since cursorMarks were introduced in SOLR-5463 in 2014, cursorMark and
> timeAllowed parameters were not allowed in combination ("Can not search using
> both cursorMark and timeAllowed")
> , from [QueryComponent.java|#L359]]:
>
> {code:java}
>
> if (null != rb.getCursorMark() && 0 < timeAllowed) {
> // fundamentally incompatible
> throw new SolrException(SolrException.ErrorCode.BAD_REQUEST, "Can not
> search using both " + CursorMarkParams.CURSOR_MARK_PARAM + " and " +
> CommonParams.TIME_ALLOWED);
> } {code}
> While theoretically impure to use them in combination, it is often desirable
> to support cursormarks-style deep paging and attempt to protect Solr nodes
> from runaway queries using timeAllowed, in the hopes that most of the time,
> the query completes in the allotted time, and there is no conflict.
>
> However if the query takes too long, it may be preferable to end the query
> and protect the Solr node and provide the user with a somewhat inaccurate
> sorted list. As noted in SOLR-6930, SOLR-5986 and others, timeAllowed is
> frequently used to prevent runaway load. In fact, cursorMark and
> shards.tolerant are allowed in combination, so any argument in favor of
> purity would be a bit muddied in my opinion.
>
> This was discussed once in the mailing list that I can find:
> [https://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/lucene-solr-user/201506.mbox/%3c5591740b.4080...@elyograg.org%3E]
> It did not look like there was strong support for preventing the combination.
>
> I have tested cursorMark and timeAllowed combination together, and even when
> partial results are returned because the timeAllowed is exceeded, the
> cursorMark response value is still valid and reasonable.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: issues-h...@lucene.apache.org
