Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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
Fast refresh indices should use search shards #113478
Fast refresh indices should use search shards #113478
Changes from all commits
da342b0
e11e283
28781a5
9ec611e
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This fixes it for future refreshes after the indexing node upgraded. But it does not guarantee immediate availability of the latest state on the search node. So we risk some seconds of non-realtime GET requests going backwards during such an upgrade? I think real-time GET requests will be saved by the wait-for generation, is that also your understanding?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The reasoning here is this code runs on the primary/indexing node, and indeed that the indexing node will be upgraded after the search nodes.
Doesn't our upgrade process guarantee that, since search nodes are upgraded first?
A non-realtime GET coordinated by an old search node will go the primary to execute.
A non-realtime GET coordinated by a new search node, with an old primary node, will go the primary to execute.
A non-realtime GET coordinated by a new search node on a fully upgraded cluster, will be executed on the search node as is done for non-fast-refresh indices. Which should be fine as well. Not sure I see when/why it might go backwards?
A real-time GET coordinated by an old search node will go the primary to execute.
A real-time GET coordinated by a new search node, with an old primary node, will go the primary to execute.
A real-time GET coordinated by a new search node on a fully upgraded cluster, will be executed on the search node as is done for non-fast-refresh indices. Which should use wait-for generation if necessary.
Please tell me if you see any corner cases I might have missed or not considered. It might be useful to think about the above combinations also for searches/mgets, but I believe it should be a similar story for them as well.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think you are right that it works out. The upgrade will force a relocation, which forces a flush, bringing things back into order. Thanks.