Modify numeric FieldMappers to enable SkipList #18066
Closed
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
kkewwei
requested review from
Bukhtawar,
CEHENKLE,
Rishikesh1159,
VachaShah,
anasalkouz,
andrross,
ashking94,
bugmakerrrrrr,
cwperks,
dbwiddis,
gbbafna,
jainankitk,
jed326,
kotwanikunal,
linuxpi,
mch2,
msfroh,
nknize,
owaiskazi19,
reta,
sachinpkale,
saratvemulapalli,
shwetathareja and
sohami
as code owners
github-actions
bot
added
enhancement
kkewwei
force-pushed
the
numberField_support_skiplist
branch
3 times, most recently
from
4b29d6b to
263e99a
Compare
Contributor
|
I'm inline with overall changes, one small query though: Do we want to add an benchmark for it? Something like this: https://github.com/opensearch-project/OpenSearch/blob/main/benchmarks/src/main/java/org/opensearch/benchmark/index/mapper/CustomBinaryDocValuesFieldBenchmark.java |
| Document document = new Document(); | ||
| fieldAValues[docId] = randomDouble(); | ||
| document.add(new SortedNumericDocValuesField(fieldA, NumericUtils.doubleToSortableLong(fieldAValues[docId]))); | ||
| document.add(SortedNumericDocValuesField.indexedField(fieldA, NumericUtils.doubleToSortableLong(fieldAValues[docId]))); |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
-
Lets not enable by default ? One option is to introduce a new parameter for skipper similar to docValues / index / stored_fields to the user. [ Of course docValues must be true for skipper to be true ]
-
Also we must see if we need to enable in experimental mode for now until search takes advantage of this data structure.
-
Do we have any benchmarks in terms of storage if we enable for all fields like this ? We can try atleast in few OSB workloads with and without this change.
kkewwei
force-pushed
the
numberField_support_skiplist
branch
from
6622724 to
186e96a
Compare
Contributor
Author
|
{"run-benchmark-test": "id_4"} |
Contributor
|
The Jenkins job url is https://build.ci.opensearch.org/job/benchmark-pull-request/3281/ . Final results will be published once the job is completed. |
Contributor
|
❌ Gradle check result for 186e96a: FAILURE 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? |
Collaborator
Benchmark ResultsBenchmark Results for Job: https://build.ci.opensearch.org/job/benchmark-pull-request/3281/
|
Collaborator
Benchmark Baseline Comparison ResultsBenchmark Results for Job: https://build.ci.opensearch.org/job/benchmark-compare/106/
|
Contributor
|
This PR is stalled because it has been open for 30 days with no activity. |
kkewwei
force-pushed
the
numberField_support_skiplist
branch
from
186e96a to
17f1869
Compare
Contributor
Author
|
Queries that show noticeable performance regression: I will retest it to double check and then look deeper into the cause. |
Signed-off-by: kkewwei <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: kkewwei <[email protected]> upgrade os version
kkewwei
force-pushed
the
numberField_support_skiplist
branch
from
17f1869 to
d7947c1
Compare
Contributor
|
❌ Gradle check result for d7947c1: FAILURE 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? |
Contributor
Author
|
{"run-benchmark-test": "id_4"} |
Contributor
|
The Jenkins job url is https://build.ci.opensearch.org/job/benchmark-pull-request/3722/ . Final results will be published once the job is completed. |
This was referenced Jul 11, 2025
Collaborator
Benchmark ResultsBenchmark Results for Job: https://build.ci.opensearch.org/job/benchmark-pull-request/3722/
|
Collaborator
Benchmark Baseline Comparison ResultsBenchmark Results for Job: https://build.ci.opensearch.org/job/benchmark-compare/132/
|
Contributor
|
Hi @kkewwei, I'm hoping to get this in for 3.2 but using mapping instead as @bharath-techie mentioned, default value of false. We've done a few benchmarks (#18751), some show no change in index size but another that shows 32%. Do you want to continue with this PR? If not, I can take over. |
2 tasks
Contributor
Author
Thank you so much for sharing the test data. I’ll be focusing intently on following up with the test this week. |
Contributor
|
Since the deadline for 3.2 is tomorrow, I posted a similar PR: #18889. Feel free to re-use it or review it, either way works for me. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
5 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.
Description
[Describe what this change achieves]
Related Issues
Resolves #17965
Check List
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.