Enable sort optimization on int, short and byte fields (#127968) #128832
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Before this PR sorting on integer, short and byte fields types used SortField.Type.LONG. This made sort optimization impossible for these field types. This PR uses SortField.Type.INT for integer, short and byte fields. This enables sort optimization. There are several caveats with changing sort type that are addressed: - Before mixed sort on integer and long fields was automatically supported, as both field types used SortField.TYPE.LONG. Now when merging results from different shards, we need to convert sort to LONG and results to long values. - Similar for collapsing when there is mixed INT and LONG sort types. - Index sorting. Similarly, before for index sorting on integer field, SortField.Type.LONG was used. This sort type is stored in the index writer config on disk and can't be modified. Now when providing sortField() for index sorting, we need to account for index version: for older indices return sort with SortField.Type.LONG and for new indices return SortField.Type.INT. --- There is only 1 change that may be considered not backwards compatible: Before if an integer field was [missing a value](https://www.elastic.co/docs/reference/elasticsearch/rest-apis/sort-search-results#_missing_values) , it sort values will return Long.MAX_VALUE in a search response. With this integer, it sort valeu will return Integer.MAX_VALUE. But I think this change is ok, as in our documentation, we don't provide information what value will be returned, we just say it will be sorted last. --- Also closes elastic#127965 (as same type validation in added for collapse queries)
mayya-sharipova
added
>enhancement
backport
auto-merge-without-approval
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
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.
Before this PR sorting on integer, short and byte fields types used SortField.Type.LONG. This made sort optimization impossible for these field types.
This PR uses SortField.Type.INT for integer, short and byte fields. This enables sort optimization.
There are several caveats with changing sort type that are addressed: - Before mixed sort on integer and long fields was automatically supported, as both field types used SortField.TYPE.LONG. Now when merging results from different shards, we need to convert sort to LONG and results to long values. - Similar for collapsing when there is mixed INT and LONG sort types. - Index sorting. Similarly, before for index sorting on integer field, SortField.Type.LONG was used. This sort type is stored in the index writer config on disk and can't be modified. Now when providing sortField() for index sorting, we need to account for index version: for older indices return sort with SortField.Type.LONG and for new indices return SortField.Type.INT.
There is only 1 change that may be considered not backwards compatible: Before if an integer field was missing a
value , it sort values will return Long.MAX_VALUE in a search response. With this integer, it sort valeu will return Integer.MAX_VALUE. But I think this change is ok, as in our documentation, we don't provide information what value will be returned, we just say it will be sorted last.
Also closes #127965 (as same type validation in added for collapse queries)
Backport for #127968