[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-10151?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17532223#comment-17532223
]
Deepika Sharma edited comment on LUCENE-10151 at 5/5/22 12:16 PM:
------------------------------------------------------------------
I am exploring adding timeout support to the {{IndexSearcher}} by using
{{ExitableDirectoryReader.}} However, one issue with
{{ExitableDirectoryReader}} is that it enforces timeout checking at the time of
instantiating {{BulkScorer}} and doesn't actually enforce it once you start
iterating postings/impacts. This is being discussed in LUCENE-10544
I want to ask if there are any suggestions on alternative ways to approach this
problem that I should consider?
was (Author: JIRAUSER288832):
I am exploring adding timeout support to the {{IndexSearcher}} by using
{{ExitableDirectoryReader.}} However, one issue with
{{ExitableDirectoryReader}} is that it enforces timeout checking at the time of
instantiating {{BulkScorer}} and doesn't actually enforce it once you start
iterating postings/impacts. This is being discussed in
[LUCENE-10544|https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-10544]
I want to ask if there are any suggestions on alternative ways to approach this
problem that I should consider?{{{}{}}}
> Add timeout support to IndexSearcher
> ------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-10151
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-10151
> Project: Lucene - Core
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: core/search
> Reporter: Greg Miller
> Priority: Minor
>
> I'd like to explore adding optional "timeout" capabilities to
> {{IndexSearcher}}. This would enable users to (optionally) specify a maximum
> time budget for search execution. If the search "times out", partial results
> would be available.
> This idea originated on the dev list (thanks [~jpountz] for the suggestion).
> Thread for reference:
> [http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/lucene-dev/202110.mbox/%3CCAL8PwkZdNGmYJopPjeXYK%3DF7rvLkWon91UEXVxMM4MeeJ3UHxQ%40mail.gmail.com%3E]
>
> A couple things to watch out for with this change:
> # We want to make sure it's robust to a two-phase query evaluation scenario
> where the "approximate" step matches a large number of candidates but the
> "confirmation" step matches very few (or none). This is a particularly tricky
> case.
> # We want to make sure the {{TotalHits#Relation}} reported by {{TopDocs}} is
> {{GREATER_THAN_OR_EQUAL_TO}} if the query times out
> # We want to make sure it plays nice with the {{LRUCache}} since it iterates
> the query to pre-populate a {{BitSet}} when caching. That step shouldn't be
> allowed to overrun the timeout. The proper way to handle this probably needs
> some thought.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.7#820007)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: issues-h...@lucene.apache.org
