-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 24.9k
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
Expose max_concurrent_shard_requests
in _msearch
#33016
Conversation
Today `_msearch` doesn't allow modifying the `max_concurrent_shard_requests` per sub search request. This change adds support for setting this parameter on all sub-search requests in an `_msearch`. Relates to elastic#31877
Pinging @elastic/es-search-aggs |
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.
LGTM
data nodes in the cluster but at most `256`. In certain scenarios parallelism isn't achieved | ||
through concurrent request such that this protection will result in poor performance. For | ||
instance in an environment where a cluster is formed by a single node holding a large amount of | ||
shards queried at the same time. In such a scenario it makes sense to increase the number to a high value. |
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.
maybe be explicit and mention that there are never two requests running at the same time too
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.
Not sure I follow, you mean being explicit that this makes sense only in a single request environment? I think the kibana usecase in general makes sense where concurrently executing request are low but potentially higher than one?
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.
Yes this is what I meant. I'm fine with relaxing it to say low numbers of concurrent requests if that works better for you?
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.
++
@@ -86,6 +86,16 @@ The msearch's `max_concurrent_searches` request parameter can be used to control | |||
the maximum number of concurrent searches the multi search api will execute. | |||
This default is based on the number of data nodes and the default search thread pool size. | |||
|
|||
The request parameter `max_concurrent_shard_requests` can be used to control the | |||
maximum number of concurrent shard requests the each sub search request will execute. |
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.
s/the/that ? sorry for being late to the party :)
Today
_msearch
doesn't allow modifying themax_concurrent_shard_requests
per sub search request. This change adds support for setting this parameter on
all sub-search requests in an
_msearch
.Relates to #31877