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

use gte(lte) to replace between() which has a bug #12595

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Mar 7, 2024

Conversation

klsince
Copy link
Contributor

@klsince klsince commented Mar 7, 2024

We found a potential bug in between() method, which missed values within the range. It only happened for a certain list of values. In fact, the issue didn't even happen after changing the order of the values in the list. The issue can be worked around by using gte(lte) for now, until the between() method is patched.

@klsince
Copy link
Contributor Author

klsince commented Mar 7, 2024

The bug was exposed with a list of 1.3mil+ timestamps of long type. Somehow, simple range filters like [ts, ts+1] would miss some expected docIds for some timestamp values in the list. @richardstartin has suggested this workaround and will help look into the between() method. Thank you!

@codecov-commenter
Copy link

codecov-commenter commented Mar 7, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 61.71%. Comparing base (59551e4) to head (f35159b).
Report is 81 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files
@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##             master   #12595      +/-   ##
============================================
- Coverage     61.75%   61.71%   -0.04%     
- Complexity      207      211       +4     
============================================
  Files          2436     2451      +15     
  Lines        133233   133730     +497     
  Branches      20636    20704      +68     
============================================
+ Hits          82274    82533     +259     
- Misses        44911    45099     +188     
- Partials       6048     6098      +50     
Flag Coverage Δ
custom-integration1 <0.01% <0.00%> (-0.01%) ⬇️
integration <0.01% <0.00%> (-0.01%) ⬇️
integration1 <0.01% <0.00%> (-0.01%) ⬇️
integration2 0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
java-11 61.67% <100.00%> (-0.04%) ⬇️
java-21 34.93% <0.00%> (-26.69%) ⬇️
skip-bytebuffers-false 61.69% <100.00%> (-0.06%) ⬇️
skip-bytebuffers-true 34.91% <0.00%> (+7.18%) ⬆️
temurin 61.71% <100.00%> (-0.04%) ⬇️
unittests 61.71% <100.00%> (-0.04%) ⬇️
unittests1 46.94% <0.00%> (+0.04%) ⬆️
unittests2 27.64% <100.00%> (-0.09%) ⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@klsince klsince merged commit 4e4f966 into apache:master Mar 7, 2024
19 checks passed
@klsince klsince deleted the fix_range_index_v2_bug branch March 7, 2024 21:18
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants