For sort request on timeseries field use non concurrent search path

[sohami]

Related Issues

#9538

Check List

• New functionality includes testing.
  • All tests pass
• New functionality has been documented.
  • New functionality has javadoc added
• Commits are signed per the DCO using --signoff
• Commit changes are listed out in CHANGELOG.md file (See: Changelog)

By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache 2.0 license.
For more information on following Developer Certificate of Origin and signing off your commits, please check here.

[sohami]

@gashutos @jed326 @reta Tagging for review

[github-actions]

Gradle Check (Jenkins) Run Completed with:

• RESULT: FAILURE ❌
• URL: https://build.ci.opensearch.org/job/gradle-check/23531/
• CommitID: 691c4ed
  Please examine the workflow log, locate, and copy-paste the failure(s) below, then iterate to green.
  Is the failure a flaky test unrelated to your change?

[github-actions]

Gradle Check (Jenkins) Run Completed with:

• RESULT: FAILURE ❌
• URL: https://build.ci.opensearch.org/job/gradle-check/23532/
• CommitID: a32c2b3
  Please examine the workflow log, locate, and copy-paste the failure(s) below, then iterate to green.
  Is the failure a flaky test unrelated to your change?

[github-actions]

Gradle Check (Jenkins) Run Completed with:

• RESULT: FAILURE ❌
• URL: https://build.ci.opensearch.org/job/gradle-check/23533/
• CommitID: 0e36771
  Please examine the workflow log, locate, and copy-paste the failure(s) below, then iterate to green.
  Is the failure a flaky test unrelated to your change?

[reta]

@sohami @jed326 @gashutos this is not in scope of this change, but I was thinking if we better off introducing the concept of search capabilities instead of adding flags to the search context, something like that (very roughly):

enum SearchCapability {
    CONCURRENT,
    USE_TIMESERIES_DESC,
    ...
}

if (context.shouldUse(SearchCapability.CONCURRENT)) {
   ...
}

What do you think folks?

[gashutos]

@sohami @jed326 @gashutos this is not in scope of this change, but I was thinking if we better off introducing the concept of search capabilities instead of adding flags to the search context, something like that (very roughly):

enum SearchCapability {
    CONCURRENT,
    USE_TIMESERIES_DESC,
    ...
}

if (context.shouldUse(SearchCapability.CONCURRENT)) {
   ...
}

What do you think folks?

+1 to this @reta We should able to chose multiple capabilities on a query too

[sohami]

@sohami @jed326 @gashutos this is not in scope of this change, but I was thinking if we better off introducing the concept of search capabilities instead of adding flags to the search context, something like that (very roughly):

enum SearchCapability {
    CONCURRENT,
    USE_TIMESERIES_DESC,
    ...
}

if (context.shouldUse(SearchCapability.CONCURRENT)) {
   ...
}

What do you think folks?

+1 to this @reta We should able to chose multiple capabilities on a query too

@reta I see your point. But for cases like timeseries asc/desc, we are evaluating based on other states (like sort/indexshard) and not storing that evaluated result as another flag. I would prefer to not store that evaluated result separately as well to avoid creating new states. Having said that, the request level evaluation for concurrent search can also be implemented without keeping separate state but I think we did that to avoid the agg factory tree traversal in each call.

[github-actions]

Gradle Check (Jenkins) Run Completed with:

• RESULT: FAILURE ❌
• URL: https://build.ci.opensearch.org/job/gradle-check/23645/
• CommitID: 7929ae9
  Please examine the workflow log, locate, and copy-paste the failure(s) below, then iterate to green.
  Is the failure a flaky test unrelated to your change?

[jed326]

I think we did that to avoid the agg factory tree traversal in each call.

We could probably change the agg factory tree concurrent search evaluation to happen at the time of tree construction too if we want to remove this state.

[github-actions]

Gradle Check (Jenkins) Run Completed with:

• RESULT: SUCCESS ✅
• URL: https://build.ci.opensearch.org/job/gradle-check/23644/
• CommitID: 7197082

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #9562 (7929ae9) into main (569d5c2) will decrease coverage by 0.08%.
Report is 2 commits behind head on main.
The diff coverage is 63.15%.

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##               main    #9562      +/-   ##
============================================
- Coverage     71.15%   71.07%   -0.08%     
+ Complexity    57536    57499      -37     
============================================
  Files          4781     4781              
  Lines        271197   271216      +19     
  Branches      39595    39596       +1     
============================================
- Hits         192975   192779     -196     
- Misses        62011    62275     +264     
+ Partials      16211    16162      -49     

Files Changed	Coverage Δ
.../opensearch/telemetry/tracing/noop/NoopTracer.java	57.14% <0.00%> (-9.53%)	⬇️
...ensearch/search/internal/ContextIndexSearcher.java	73.21% <0.00%> (+4.11%)	⬆️
...nsearch/search/internal/FilteredSearchContext.java	8.69% <0.00%> (-0.08%)	⬇️
.../org/opensearch/search/internal/SearchContext.java	41.50% <ø> (ø)
...va/org/opensearch/search/DefaultSearchContext.java	77.97% <40.00%> (-0.92%)	⬇️
...rg/opensearch/telemetry/tracing/WrappedTracer.java	78.57% <50.00%> (-6.05%)	⬇️
...ava/org/opensearch/search/sort/SortAndFormats.java	66.66% <66.66%> (ø)
...elemetry/tracing/OTelTracingContextPropagator.java	73.33% <70.00%> (-1.67%)	⬇️
...rg/opensearch/telemetry/tracing/DefaultTracer.java	93.10% <100.00%> (+0.51%)	⬆️
...search/search/query/QueryPhaseSearcherWrapper.java	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
... and 1 more

... and 473 files with indirect coverage changes

[reta]

@reta I see your point. But for cases like timeseries asc/desc, we are evaluating based on other states (like sort/indexshard) and not storing that evaluated result as another flag.

Thanks @sohami , I am intentionally not digging into how it is evaluated, just looking on the issue from usability perspective:

public boolean shouldUseConcurrentSearch() {
}

public boolean shouldUseTimeSeriesDescSortOptimization() {
}

...

would collapse into context.shouldUse(SearchCapability.CONCURRENT) or context.shouldUse(SearchCapability.USE_TIMESERIES_DESC), the evaluation part we could sort out I am sure.

[sohami]

I think we did that to avoid the agg factory tree traversal in each call.

We could probably change the agg factory tree concurrent search evaluation to happen at the time of tree construction too if we want to remove this state.

But that will still require to store the evaluated result in some other place which is similar to what we have today.

[sohami]

@reta I see your point. But for cases like timeseries asc/desc, we are evaluating based on other states (like sort/indexshard) and not storing that evaluated result as another flag.

Thanks @sohami , I am intentionally not digging into how it is evaluated, just looking on the issue from usability perspective:

public boolean shouldUseConcurrentSearch() {
}

public boolean shouldUseTimeSeriesDescSortOptimization() {
}

...

would collapse into context.shouldUse(SearchCapability.CONCURRENT) or context.shouldUse(SearchCapability.USE_TIMESERIES_DESC), the evaluation part we could sort out I am sure.

Got it. So instead of separate methods to figure out what optimizations to use. Have a single shouldUse() sort of semantics. But won't that overload a single method with multiple different evaluations which can make this logic complex (as one can be dependent on other)?. With separate methods IMO it is just checking for that particular condition which can be consumed from different places and doesn't care about other evaluations.

[reta]

But won't that overload a single method with multiple different evaluations which can make this logic complex (as one can be dependent on other)?. With separate methods IMO it is just checking for that particular condition which can be consumed from different places and doesn't care about other evaluations.

I think you are still thinking about the implementation (it is important but not in scope): the method checks single capability, says "yes" / "no". From implementation perspective, if it goes wild - we won't be doing it for sure.

[sohami]

For gradle check seeing an unrelated test failure: org.opensearch.index.shard.RemoteIndexShardTests.testNRTReplicaWithRemoteStorePromotedAsPrimaryCommitCommit
Created issue for tracking: #9589

[github-actions]

Gradle Check (Jenkins) Run Completed with:

• RESULT: FAILURE ❌
• URL: https://build.ci.opensearch.org/job/gradle-check/23656/
• CommitID: 7929ae9
  Please examine the workflow log, locate, and copy-paste the failure(s) below, then iterate to green.
  Is the failure a flaky test unrelated to your change?

[sohami]

For compatibility check it is failing with CCR plugin with below error. Checked couple other PRs and there are also seeing same issue.

Error output for https:/opensearch-project/cross-cluster-replication.git build:

e: file:///tmp/groovy-generated-tmpdir-7692019513789344670/src/main/kotlin/org/opensearch/replication/repository/RemoteClusterRepository.kt:82:1 Class 'RemoteClusterRepository' is not abstract and does not implement abstract member public abstract fun getRemoteUploadThrottleTimeInNanos(): Long defined in org.opensearch.repositories.Repository

FAILURE: Build failed with an exception.

* What went wrong:
Execution failed for task ':compileKotlin'.
> A failure occurred while executing org.jetbrains.kotlin.compilerRunner.GradleCompilerRunnerWithWorkers$GradleKotlinCompilerWorkAction
   > Compilation error. See log for more details

[github-actions]

Gradle Check (Jenkins) Run Completed with:

• RESULT: SUCCESS ✅
• URL: https://build.ci.opensearch.org/job/gradle-check/23659/
• CommitID: 7929ae9

[opensearch-trigger-bot]

The backport to 2.x failed:

The process '/usr/bin/git' failed with exit code 128

To backport manually, run these commands in your terminal:

# Navigate to the root of your repository
cd $(git rev-parse --show-toplevel)
# Fetch latest updates from GitHub
git fetch
# Create a new working tree
git worktree add ../.worktrees/OpenSearch/backport-2.x 2.x
# Navigate to the new working tree
pushd ../.worktrees/OpenSearch/backport-2.x
# Create a new branch
git switch --create backport/backport-9562-to-2.x
# Cherry-pick the merged commit of this pull request and resolve the conflicts
git cherry-pick -x --mainline 1 e5c4f9d2016bfa50c464945dc9533aa4aee49922
# Push it to GitHub
git push --set-upstream origin backport/backport-9562-to-2.x
# Go back to the original working tree
popd
# Delete the working tree
git worktree remove ../.worktrees/OpenSearch/backport-2.x

Then, create a pull request where the base branch is 2.x and the compare/head branch is backport/backport-9562-to-2.x.