Re: 8.6.1 Release
Absolutely, Ilan! Good idea. I initially hesitated in doing so because Andrzej had a workaround in mind for them, so I thought it would be better if he did this. But, it makes sense to inform them of the issue right away anyway. On Wed, 22 Jul, 2020, 11:42 pm Ilan Ginzburg, wrote: > Shouldn't we add a note right away to 8.6 notifying of the issue? > > Le mer. 22 juil. 2020 à 20:08, Atri Sharma a écrit : > >> +1, thanks Houston. >> >> On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 10:51 PM Houston Putman >> wrote: >> > >> > If we agree that this warrants a patch release, I volunteer to do the >> release. >> > >> > I do think a patch release is reasonable even if users have to take an >> action when upgrading from 8.6.0. I imagine most users haven't upgraded to >> 8.6.0 yet, so if we make the patch now we will make life easier for >> everyone that upgrades between now and when 8.7 is released. >> > >> > On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 12:50 PM Atri Sharma wrote: >> >> >> >> Ignore this, I misread your email. >> >> >> >> On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 9:11 PM Atri Sharma wrote: >> >> > >> >> > Should we not revert the change so that users upgrading from 8.6 to >> >> > 8.6.1 get the earlier default policy? >> >> > >> >> > On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 9:09 PM Houston Putman < >> houstonput...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > > >> >> > > +1 >> >> > > >> >> > > Question about the change. Since this patch added a default >> autoscaling policy, if users upgrade to 8.6 and then 8.6.1, does the >> default autoscaling policy stay once they have upgraded? If so we probably >> want to include instructions in the release notes on how to fix this issue >> once upgrading. >> >> > > >> >> > > - Houston >> >> > > >> >> > > On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 1:53 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya < >> ichattopadhy...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> > >> Hi, >> >> > >> There was a performance regression identified in 8.6.0 release >> due to SOLR-12845. I think it is serious enough to warrant an immediate bug >> fix release. >> >> > >> >> >> > >> I propose a 8.6.1 release. Unfortunately, I'll be unable to >> volunteer for this release owning to some other commitments, however >> Andrzej mentioned in Slack that he might be able to volunteer for this post >> 27th. >> >> > >> >> >> > >> Are there any thoughts/concerns regarding this? >> >> > >> Regards, >> >> > >> Ishan >> >> > >> >> > -- >> >> > Regards, >> >> > >> >> > Atri >> >> > Apache Concerted >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Regards, >> >> >> >> Atri >> >> Apache Concerted >> >> >> >> - >> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org >> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Regards, >> >> Atri >> Apache Concerted >> >> - >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org >> >>
Re: 8.6.1 Release
Shouldn't we add a note right away to 8.6 notifying of the issue? Le mer. 22 juil. 2020 à 20:08, Atri Sharma a écrit : > +1, thanks Houston. > > On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 10:51 PM Houston Putman > wrote: > > > > If we agree that this warrants a patch release, I volunteer to do the > release. > > > > I do think a patch release is reasonable even if users have to take an > action when upgrading from 8.6.0. I imagine most users haven't upgraded to > 8.6.0 yet, so if we make the patch now we will make life easier for > everyone that upgrades between now and when 8.7 is released. > > > > On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 12:50 PM Atri Sharma wrote: > >> > >> Ignore this, I misread your email. > >> > >> On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 9:11 PM Atri Sharma wrote: > >> > > >> > Should we not revert the change so that users upgrading from 8.6 to > >> > 8.6.1 get the earlier default policy? > >> > > >> > On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 9:09 PM Houston Putman < > houstonput...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > > > >> > > +1 > >> > > > >> > > Question about the change. Since this patch added a default > autoscaling policy, if users upgrade to 8.6 and then 8.6.1, does the > default autoscaling policy stay once they have upgraded? If so we probably > want to include instructions in the release notes on how to fix this issue > once upgrading. > >> > > > >> > > - Houston > >> > > > >> > > On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 1:53 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya < > ichattopadhy...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> There was a performance regression identified in 8.6.0 release due > to SOLR-12845. I think it is serious enough to warrant an immediate bug fix > release. > >> > >> > >> > >> I propose a 8.6.1 release. Unfortunately, I'll be unable to > volunteer for this release owning to some other commitments, however > Andrzej mentioned in Slack that he might be able to volunteer for this post > 27th. > >> > >> > >> > >> Are there any thoughts/concerns regarding this? > >> > >> Regards, > >> > >> Ishan > >> > > >> > -- > >> > Regards, > >> > > >> > Atri > >> > Apache Concerted > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Regards, > >> > >> Atri > >> Apache Concerted > >> > >> - > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org > >> > > > -- > Regards, > > Atri > Apache Concerted > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org > >
Re: 8.6.1 Release
+1, thanks Houston. On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 10:51 PM Houston Putman wrote: > > If we agree that this warrants a patch release, I volunteer to do the release. > > I do think a patch release is reasonable even if users have to take an action > when upgrading from 8.6.0. I imagine most users haven't upgraded to 8.6.0 > yet, so if we make the patch now we will make life easier for everyone that > upgrades between now and when 8.7 is released. > > On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 12:50 PM Atri Sharma wrote: >> >> Ignore this, I misread your email. >> >> On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 9:11 PM Atri Sharma wrote: >> > >> > Should we not revert the change so that users upgrading from 8.6 to >> > 8.6.1 get the earlier default policy? >> > >> > On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 9:09 PM Houston Putman >> > wrote: >> > > >> > > +1 >> > > >> > > Question about the change. Since this patch added a default autoscaling >> > > policy, if users upgrade to 8.6 and then 8.6.1, does the default >> > > autoscaling policy stay once they have upgraded? If so we probably want >> > > to include instructions in the release notes on how to fix this issue >> > > once upgrading. >> > > >> > > - Houston >> > > >> > > On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 1:53 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya >> > > wrote: >> > >> >> > >> Hi, >> > >> There was a performance regression identified in 8.6.0 release due to >> > >> SOLR-12845. I think it is serious enough to warrant an immediate bug >> > >> fix release. >> > >> >> > >> I propose a 8.6.1 release. Unfortunately, I'll be unable to volunteer >> > >> for this release owning to some other commitments, however Andrzej >> > >> mentioned in Slack that he might be able to volunteer for this post >> > >> 27th. >> > >> >> > >> Are there any thoughts/concerns regarding this? >> > >> Regards, >> > >> Ishan >> > >> > -- >> > Regards, >> > >> > Atri >> > Apache Concerted >> >> >> >> -- >> Regards, >> >> Atri >> Apache Concerted >> >> - >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org >> -- Regards, Atri Apache Concerted - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
Re: 8.6.1 Release
+1 for the release. Having a hotfix release that fixes regression is a great option for users who plan to be on 8.6.x. Thanks Houston and Ishan! On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 10:15 AM Houston Putman wrote: > If we agree that this warrants a patch release, I volunteer to do the > release. > > I do think a patch release is reasonable even if users have to take an > action when upgrading from 8.6.0. I imagine most users haven't upgraded to > 8.6.0 yet, so if we make the patch now we will make life easier for > everyone that upgrades between now and when 8.7 is released. > > On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 12:50 PM Atri Sharma wrote: > >> Ignore this, I misread your email. >> >> On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 9:11 PM Atri Sharma wrote: >> > >> > Should we not revert the change so that users upgrading from 8.6 to >> > 8.6.1 get the earlier default policy? >> > >> > On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 9:09 PM Houston Putman >> wrote: >> > > >> > > +1 >> > > >> > > Question about the change. Since this patch added a default >> autoscaling policy, if users upgrade to 8.6 and then 8.6.1, does the >> default autoscaling policy stay once they have upgraded? If so we probably >> want to include instructions in the release notes on how to fix this issue >> once upgrading. >> > > >> > > - Houston >> > > >> > > On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 1:53 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya < >> ichattopadhy...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> >> > >> Hi, >> > >> There was a performance regression identified in 8.6.0 release due >> to SOLR-12845. I think it is serious enough to warrant an immediate bug fix >> release. >> > >> >> > >> I propose a 8.6.1 release. Unfortunately, I'll be unable to >> volunteer for this release owning to some other commitments, however >> Andrzej mentioned in Slack that he might be able to volunteer for this post >> 27th. >> > >> >> > >> Are there any thoughts/concerns regarding this? >> > >> Regards, >> > >> Ishan >> > >> > -- >> > Regards, >> > >> > Atri >> > Apache Concerted >> >> >> >> -- >> Regards, >> >> Atri >> Apache Concerted >> >> - >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org >> >> -- Anshum Gupta
Re: 8.6.1 Release
Thanks Houston! On Wed, 22 Jul, 2020, 10:51 pm Houston Putman, wrote: > If we agree that this warrants a patch release, I volunteer to do the > release. > > I do think a patch release is reasonable even if users have to take an > action when upgrading from 8.6.0. I imagine most users haven't upgraded to > 8.6.0 yet, so if we make the patch now we will make life easier for > everyone that upgrades between now and when 8.7 is released. > > On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 12:50 PM Atri Sharma wrote: > >> Ignore this, I misread your email. >> >> On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 9:11 PM Atri Sharma wrote: >> > >> > Should we not revert the change so that users upgrading from 8.6 to >> > 8.6.1 get the earlier default policy? >> > >> > On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 9:09 PM Houston Putman >> wrote: >> > > >> > > +1 >> > > >> > > Question about the change. Since this patch added a default >> autoscaling policy, if users upgrade to 8.6 and then 8.6.1, does the >> default autoscaling policy stay once they have upgraded? If so we probably >> want to include instructions in the release notes on how to fix this issue >> once upgrading. >> > > >> > > - Houston >> > > >> > > On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 1:53 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya < >> ichattopadhy...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> >> > >> Hi, >> > >> There was a performance regression identified in 8.6.0 release due >> to SOLR-12845. I think it is serious enough to warrant an immediate bug fix >> release. >> > >> >> > >> I propose a 8.6.1 release. Unfortunately, I'll be unable to >> volunteer for this release owning to some other commitments, however >> Andrzej mentioned in Slack that he might be able to volunteer for this post >> 27th. >> > >> >> > >> Are there any thoughts/concerns regarding this? >> > >> Regards, >> > >> Ishan >> > >> > -- >> > Regards, >> > >> > Atri >> > Apache Concerted >> >> >> >> -- >> Regards, >> >> Atri >> Apache Concerted >> >> - >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org >> >>
Re: 8.6.1 Release
If we agree that this warrants a patch release, I volunteer to do the release. I do think a patch release is reasonable even if users have to take an action when upgrading from 8.6.0. I imagine most users haven't upgraded to 8.6.0 yet, so if we make the patch now we will make life easier for everyone that upgrades between now and when 8.7 is released. On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 12:50 PM Atri Sharma wrote: > Ignore this, I misread your email. > > On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 9:11 PM Atri Sharma wrote: > > > > Should we not revert the change so that users upgrading from 8.6 to > > 8.6.1 get the earlier default policy? > > > > On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 9:09 PM Houston Putman > wrote: > > > > > > +1 > > > > > > Question about the change. Since this patch added a default > autoscaling policy, if users upgrade to 8.6 and then 8.6.1, does the > default autoscaling policy stay once they have upgraded? If so we probably > want to include instructions in the release notes on how to fix this issue > once upgrading. > > > > > > - Houston > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 1:53 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya < > ichattopadhy...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > >> Hi, > > >> There was a performance regression identified in 8.6.0 release due to > SOLR-12845. I think it is serious enough to warrant an immediate bug fix > release. > > >> > > >> I propose a 8.6.1 release. Unfortunately, I'll be unable to volunteer > for this release owning to some other commitments, however Andrzej > mentioned in Slack that he might be able to volunteer for this post 27th. > > >> > > >> Are there any thoughts/concerns regarding this? > > >> Regards, > > >> Ishan > > > > -- > > Regards, > > > > Atri > > Apache Concerted > > > > -- > Regards, > > Atri > Apache Concerted > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org > >
Re: 8.6.1 Release
Ignore this, I misread your email. On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 9:11 PM Atri Sharma wrote: > > Should we not revert the change so that users upgrading from 8.6 to > 8.6.1 get the earlier default policy? > > On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 9:09 PM Houston Putman > wrote: > > > > +1 > > > > Question about the change. Since this patch added a default autoscaling > > policy, if users upgrade to 8.6 and then 8.6.1, does the default > > autoscaling policy stay once they have upgraded? If so we probably want to > > include instructions in the release notes on how to fix this issue once > > upgrading. > > > > - Houston > > > > On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 1:53 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya > > wrote: > >> > >> Hi, > >> There was a performance regression identified in 8.6.0 release due to > >> SOLR-12845. I think it is serious enough to warrant an immediate bug fix > >> release. > >> > >> I propose a 8.6.1 release. Unfortunately, I'll be unable to volunteer for > >> this release owning to some other commitments, however Andrzej mentioned > >> in Slack that he might be able to volunteer for this post 27th. > >> > >> Are there any thoughts/concerns regarding this? > >> Regards, > >> Ishan > > -- > Regards, > > Atri > Apache Concerted -- Regards, Atri Apache Concerted - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
Re: 8.6.1 Release
Communicating a workaround may or may not reach everybody affected — unless we plan to publish it on every channel. Whereas a release is much more visible and an obvious way to mitigate the issue. On Wed, 22 Jul 2020 at 21:40, Ilan Ginzburg wrote: > I didn't look at the issue, but if it is due to a default inefficient > policy, instead of a new release (that as Houston points out will not even > solve the issue), can't we communicate a workaround, namely a way to reset > the default policy to some other value after 8.6 deploy that would make the > problem disappear? > > But maybe the issue is more than config? > > Ilan > > On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 5:46 PM Houston Putman > wrote: > >> +1 >> >> Question about the change. Since this patch added a default autoscaling >> policy, if users upgrade to 8.6 and then 8.6.1, does the default >> autoscaling policy stay once they have upgraded? If so we probably want to >> include instructions in the release notes on how to fix this issue once >> upgrading. >> >> - Houston >> >> On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 1:53 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya < >> ichattopadhy...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> There was a performance regression identified in 8.6.0 release due to >>> SOLR-12845. I think it is serious enough to warrant an immediate bug fix >>> release. >>> >>> I propose a 8.6.1 release. Unfortunately, I'll be unable to volunteer >>> for this release owning to some other commitments, however Andrzej >>> mentioned in Slack that he might be able to volunteer for this post 27th. >>> >>> Are there any thoughts/concerns regarding this? >>> Regards, >>> Ishan >>> >> -- Regards, Atri Apache Concerted
Re: 8.6.1 Release
I didn't look at the issue, but if it is due to a default inefficient policy, instead of a new release (that as Houston points out will not even solve the issue), can't we communicate a workaround, namely a way to reset the default policy to some other value after 8.6 deploy that would make the problem disappear? But maybe the issue is more than config? Ilan On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 5:46 PM Houston Putman wrote: > +1 > > Question about the change. Since this patch added a default autoscaling > policy, if users upgrade to 8.6 and then 8.6.1, does the default > autoscaling policy stay once they have upgraded? If so we probably want to > include instructions in the release notes on how to fix this issue once > upgrading. > > - Houston > > On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 1:53 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya < > ichattopadhy...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi, >> There was a performance regression identified in 8.6.0 release due to >> SOLR-12845. I think it is serious enough to warrant an immediate bug fix >> release. >> >> I propose a 8.6.1 release. Unfortunately, I'll be unable to volunteer for >> this release owning to some other commitments, however Andrzej mentioned in >> Slack that he might be able to volunteer for this post 27th. >> >> Are there any thoughts/concerns regarding this? >> Regards, >> Ishan >> >
Re: 8.6.1 Release
Should we not revert the change so that users upgrading from 8.6 to 8.6.1 get the earlier default policy? On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 9:09 PM Houston Putman wrote: > > +1 > > Question about the change. Since this patch added a default autoscaling > policy, if users upgrade to 8.6 and then 8.6.1, does the default autoscaling > policy stay once they have upgraded? If so we probably want to include > instructions in the release notes on how to fix this issue once upgrading. > > - Houston > > On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 1:53 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya > wrote: >> >> Hi, >> There was a performance regression identified in 8.6.0 release due to >> SOLR-12845. I think it is serious enough to warrant an immediate bug fix >> release. >> >> I propose a 8.6.1 release. Unfortunately, I'll be unable to volunteer for >> this release owning to some other commitments, however Andrzej mentioned in >> Slack that he might be able to volunteer for this post 27th. >> >> Are there any thoughts/concerns regarding this? >> Regards, >> Ishan -- Regards, Atri Apache Concerted - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
Re: 8.6.1 Release
+1 On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 11:23 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya wrote: > > Hi, > There was a performance regression identified in 8.6.0 release due to > SOLR-12845. I think it is serious enough to warrant an immediate bug fix > release. > > I propose a 8.6.1 release. Unfortunately, I'll be unable to volunteer for > this release owning to some other commitments, however Andrzej mentioned in > Slack that he might be able to volunteer for this post 27th. > > Are there any thoughts/concerns regarding this? > Regards, > Ishan -- Regards, Atri Apache Concerted - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
Re: 8.6.1 Release
+1 Question about the change. Since this patch added a default autoscaling policy, if users upgrade to 8.6 and then 8.6.1, does the default autoscaling policy stay once they have upgraded? If so we probably want to include instructions in the release notes on how to fix this issue once upgrading. - Houston On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 1:53 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya < ichattopadhy...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > There was a performance regression identified in 8.6.0 release due to > SOLR-12845. I think it is serious enough to warrant an immediate bug fix > release. > > I propose a 8.6.1 release. Unfortunately, I'll be unable to volunteer for > this release owning to some other commitments, however Andrzej mentioned in > Slack that he might be able to volunteer for this post 27th. > > Are there any thoughts/concerns regarding this? > Regards, > Ishan >
Re: Parallel SQL join on multivalued fields
I think the first step would be comprehensive unit tests for joins in Parallel SQL, coupled with performance tests so we understand how distributed performs at scale through the calcites framework. Then we know if we can actually say joins are really supported. Then we can add the documentation. If join support becomes part of parallel SQL then we can actively look at improving them. If you want to add the unit tests I can find the time to help commit and I can help with the performance tests. Joel Bernstein http://joelsolr.blogspot.com/ On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 5:02 AM Piero Scrima wrote: > any suggestion on this? > Thanks > > Il giorno mer 1 lug 2020 alle ore 11:22 Piero Scrima > ha scritto: > >> Hi, >> >> I don't know if this is the right place for my question, anyway I'll try >> to explain the issue here and understand together with you if it's worth >> working on it. >> I'm working with the parallel sql feature of Solr. Even though , looking >> at the documentation, the join seems not supported, the join works. I gave >> a look to the code and I understood that it works thanks to the calcite >> features, (the framework on top of which is is build parellel sql feature). >> My project doesn't need to works with big amount of data, and I think that >> the calcite join feature can work well for my use case. >> The problems arise when I need to join two multivalued field. >> In parallel sql, the JOIN operation on two multivalued field seems to >> works matching the two fields as a unique string, so that, for example , a >> document with the join field like this :["a","b"]; will match with a >> document with a join field exactly equal, like this: ["a","b"]; otherwise >> if even only one element is different, they do not match.The right way to >> do this should be first to explode the document in more document as much as >> the number of element in the multivalued field (cross product on the field) >> and then perform the join. I managed to solve the problem using streaming >> expression: >> >> innerJoin( >> sort( >> cartesianProduct( >> >> search(census_defence_system,q="*:*",fl="id,defence_system,description,supplier",sort="id >> asc",qt="/select",rows="1000"), >> supplier >> ), >> by="supplier asc" >> ), >> sort( >> cartesianProduct( >> >> search(census_components,q="*:*",fl="id,compoenent_name,supplier",sort="id >> asc",qt="/select",rows="1"), >> supplier >> ), >> by="supplier asc" >> ), >> on="supplier" >> ) >> with suplier as a multivalued field. It works very well. >> Anyway it would be great if the JOIN of multivalued field performed this >> behavior with cartesian product also in parallel sql. >> I think this could be a very powerful improvement, apply sql in a not >> normalized collection/table. It could be possible to implement this >> feature? I will be very glad to work on it. >> >> Thank you, >> >> Piero >> >
