[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-9981?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17353762#comment-17353762
 ] 

Robert Muir commented on LUCENE-9981:
-------------------------------------

Nope, but exposing very slow queries (via DSL) to unauthenticated users is 
literally begging for trouble.

require auth so that only the things that should speak to your search server 
can (such as your web front end). And don't expose crazy queries like wildcards 
and regexes if you care about performance: you can use something like lucene's 
SimpleQueryParser which has only a few features and allows you to toggle stuff 
like that off.

> CompiledAutomaton.getCommonSuffix can be extraordinarily slow, even with 
> default maxDeterminizedStates limit
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: LUCENE-9981
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-9981
>             Project: Lucene - Core
>          Issue Type: Task
>            Reporter: Robert Muir
>            Priority: Major
>         Attachments: LUCENE-9981_test.patch
>
>
> We have a {{maxDeterminizedStates = 10000}} limit designed to keep 
> regexp-type queries from blowing up. 
> But we have an adversary that will run for 268s on my laptop before hitting 
> exception, first reported here: 
> https://github.com/opensearch-project/OpenSearch/issues/687
> When I run the test and jstack the threads, this what I see:
> {noformat}
> "TEST-TestOpensearch687.testInteresting-seed#[4B9C20A027A9850C]" #15 prio=5 
> os_prio=0 cpu=56960.04ms elapsed=57.49s tid=0x00007fff7006ca80 nid=0x231c8 
> runnable  [0x00007fff8b7f0000]
>    java.lang.Thread.State: RUNNABLE
>       at 
> org.apache.lucene.util.automaton.SortedIntSet.decr(SortedIntSet.java:106)
>       at 
> org.apache.lucene.util.automaton.Operations.determinize(Operations.java:769)
>       at 
> org.apache.lucene.util.automaton.Operations.getCommonSuffixBytesRef(Operations.java:1155)
>       at 
> org.apache.lucene.util.automaton.CompiledAutomaton.<init>(CompiledAutomaton.java:247)
>       at 
> org.apache.lucene.search.AutomatonQuery.<init>(AutomatonQuery.java:104)
>       at 
> org.apache.lucene.search.AutomatonQuery.<init>(AutomatonQuery.java:82)
>       at org.apache.lucene.search.RegexpQuery.<init>(RegexpQuery.java:138)
>       at org.apache.lucene.search.RegexpQuery.<init>(RegexpQuery.java:114)
>       at org.apache.lucene.search.RegexpQuery.<init>(RegexpQuery.java:72)
>       at org.apache.lucene.search.RegexpQuery.<init>(RegexpQuery.java:62)
>       at 
> org.apache.lucene.TestOpensearch687.testInteresting(TestOpensearch687.java:42)
> {noformat}
> This is really sad, as {{getCommonSuffixBytesRef()}} is only supposed to be 
> an "up-front" optimization to make the actual subsequent terms-intensive part 
> of the query faster. But it makes the whole query run for nearly 5 minutes 
> before it does anything.
> So I definitely think we should improve {{getCommonSuffixBytesRef}} to be 
> more "best-effort". For example, it can reduce the lower bound to {{1000}} 
> and catch the exception like such:
> {code}
> try {
>    // this is slow, and just an opto anyway, so don't burn cycles on it for 
> some crazy worst-case.
>    // if we don't set this common suffix, the query will just run a bit 
> slower, that's all.
>    int limit = Math.min(1000, maxDeterminizedStates);
>    BytesRef suffix = Operations.getCommonSuffixBytesRef(binary, limit);
>    ... (setting commonSuffixRef)
> } catch (TooComplexTooDeterminizeException notWorthIt) {
>   commonSuffixRef = null;
> }
> {code}
> Another, maybe simpler option, is to just check that input state/transitions 
> accounts don't exceed some low limit N.
> Basically this opto is geared at stuff like leading wildcard query of "*foo". 
> By computing that the common suffix is "foo" we can spend less CPU in the 
> terms dictionary because we can first do a memcmp before having to run data 
> thru any finite state machine. It's really a microopt and we shouldn't be 
> spending whole seconds of cpu on it, ever.
> But I still don't quite understand how the current limits are giving the 
> behavior today, maybe there is a bigger issue and I don't want to shove 
> something under the rug.



--
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

Reply via email to