[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-9981?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
 ]

Michael McCandless updated LUCENE-9981:
---------------------------------------
    Attachment: LUCENE-9981.patch
        Status: Open  (was: Open)

Another iteration!  Tests seem to be passing!  I will try to beast them.
 * Moved back to {{int}} parameter, and "roughly" approximate states to effort 
by multiplying the incoming {{int}} by 10
 * Added a couple {{CHANGES.txt}} entries, only under 9.0 for now (we can move 
it down to 8.x when we backport after backing)

> 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.patch, LUCENE-9981.patch, LUCENE-9981.patch, 
> LUCENE-9981.patch, LUCENE-9981_nfaprefix.patch, LUCENE-9981_test.patch, 
> three-repeats-reverse-det.png, three-repeats.png
>
>
> 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