Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[DOC] Update terminate_after documentation with explanation of edge cases when using size=0 and track_total_hits=true #5553

Open
1 of 4 tasks
jed326 opened this issue Nov 8, 2023 · 3 comments
Assignees
Labels
1 - Backlog - DEV Developer assigned to issue is responsible for creating PR. v2.2.0

Comments

@jed326
Copy link
Contributor

jed326 commented Nov 8, 2023

What do you want to do?

  • Request a change to existing documentation
  • Add new documentation
  • Report a technical problem with the documentation
  • Other

Tell us about your request. Provide a summary of the request and all versions that are affected.
Docs: https://opensearch.org/docs/1.2/opensearch/rest-api/search/

There is a special edge case when terminate_after=true, size=0, and track_total_hits=true are used together where the hits.count value may be greater than the terminate_after value due to a time optimization use in this scenario.

What other resources are available? Provide links to related issues, POCs, steps for testing, etc.

For more details see: opensearch-project/OpenSearch#10435 (comment)

@hdhalter
Copy link
Contributor

Thanks for this feedback, @jed326! Please note that we are no longer maintaining the 1.2 documentation. We are maintaining the latest minor version of the major versions (2.11 and 1.3). Is this an issue in those versions? If so, can you please create a PR to update the page?

@jed326
Copy link
Contributor Author

jed326 commented Nov 15, 2023

Hey @hdhalter apologies for the confusion I didn't mean to link to 1.2 specifically. This is actually an edge case that has existed since OpenSearch 2.2. Ideally we would add this documentation to all versions after 2.2, but if we are only maintaining the latest minor version docs then we can add it beginning in 2.11. I can follow-up with a PR for this in some time. Thanks!

@hdhalter
Copy link
Contributor

In some cases we do backport to previous versions, like in the case of incorrect information, so we can backport this one to 2.2.

@hdhalter hdhalter added backport 2.2 PR: Backport label for 2.2 backport 2.3 PR: Backport label for 2.3 backport 2.4 PR: Backport label for 2.4 backport 2.5 PR: Backport label for 2.5 backport 2.6 PR: Backport label for 2.6 backport 2.7 PR: Backport label for 2.7 backport 2.8 PR: Backport label for 2.8 backport 2.9 PR: Backport label for 2.9 backport 2.10 PR: Backport label for 2.10 backport 2.11 PR: Backport label for 2.11 1 - Backlog - DEV Developer assigned to issue is responsible for creating PR. v2.2.0 v2.3.0 and removed untriaged backport 2.2 PR: Backport label for 2.2 backport 2.3 PR: Backport label for 2.3 backport 2.4 PR: Backport label for 2.4 backport 2.5 PR: Backport label for 2.5 backport 2.6 PR: Backport label for 2.6 backport 2.7 PR: Backport label for 2.7 backport 2.8 PR: Backport label for 2.8 backport 2.9 PR: Backport label for 2.9 backport 2.10 PR: Backport label for 2.10 backport 2.11 PR: Backport label for 2.11 labels Nov 15, 2023
@hdhalter hdhalter added v2.4.0 'Issues and PRs related to version v2.4.0' v2.5.0 'Issues and PRs related to version v2.5.0' v2.6.0 v2.7.0 v2.8.0 v2.9.0 v2.10.0 v2.11.0 v2.12.0 labels Nov 15, 2023
@hdhalter hdhalter removed v2.3.0 v2.4.0 'Issues and PRs related to version v2.4.0' v2.5.0 'Issues and PRs related to version v2.5.0' v2.6.0 v2.7.0 v2.8.0 v2.9.0 v2.10.0 v2.11.0 v2.12.0 labels Jan 16, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
1 - Backlog - DEV Developer assigned to issue is responsible for creating PR. v2.2.0
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants