The issue was that the operation « DocumentDeletionByFilter » was not
declared as an index operation. That means the indexes stats were not
reprocessed after the application of the operation.
3851: Expose lastUpdate and isIndexing in /stats endpoint r=dureuill a=gentcys
# Pull Request
## Related issue
Fixes#3843
## What does this PR do?
- expose lastUpdate in `/stats` endpoint
- expose isIndex in `stats` endpoint
- add a method `is_task_processing` in index-scheduler/src/lib.rs.
## PR checklist
Please check if your PR fulfills the following requirements:
- [x] Does this PR fix an existing issue, or have you listed the changes applied in the PR description (and why they are needed)?
- [x] Have you read the contributing guidelines?
- [x] Have you made sure that the title is accurate and descriptive of the changes?
Thank you so much for contributing to Meilisearch!
Co-authored-by: Cong Chen <cong.chen@ocrlabs.com>
Co-authored-by: ManyTheFish <many@meilisearch.com>
Co-authored-by: Louis Dureuil <louis@meilisearch.com>
3842: fix some typos r=dureuill a=cuishuang
# Pull Request
## Related issue
Fixes #<issue_number>
## What does this PR do?
- fix some typos
## PR checklist
Please check if your PR fulfills the following requirements:
- [x] Does this PR fix an existing issue, or have you listed the changes applied in the PR description (and why they are needed)?
- [x] Have you read the contributing guidelines?
- [x] Have you made sure that the title is accurate and descriptive of the changes?
Thank you so much for contributing to Meilisearch!
Co-authored-by: cui fliter <imcusg@gmail.com>
3670: Fix addition deletion bug r=irevoire a=irevoire
The first commit of this PR is a revert of https://github.com/meilisearch/meilisearch/pull/3667. It re-enable the auto-batching of addition and deletion of tasks. No new changes have been introduced outside of `milli`. So all the changes you see on the autobatcher have actually already been reviewed.
It fixes https://github.com/meilisearch/meilisearch/issues/3440.
### What was happening?
The issue was that the `external_documents_ids` generated in the `transform` were used in a very strange way that wasn’t compatible with the deletion of documents.
Instead of doing a clear merge between the external document IDs of the DB and the one returned by the transform + writing it on disk, we were doing some weird tricks with the soft-deleted to avoid writing the fst on disk as much as possible.
The new algorithm may be a bit slower but is way more straightforward and doesn’t change depending on if the soft deletion was used or not. Here is a list of the changes introduced:
1. We now do a clear distinction between the `new_external_documents_ids` coming from the transform and only held on RAM and the `external_documents_ids` coming from the DB.
2. The `new_external_documents_ids` (coming out of the transform) are now represented as an `fst`. We don't need to struggle with the hard, soft distinction + the soft_deleted => That's easier to understand
3. When indexing documents, we merge the `external_documents_ids` coming from the DB and the `new_external_documents_ids` coming from the transform.
### Other things introduced in this PR
Since we constantly have to write small, very specialized fuzzers for this kind of bug, we decided to push the one used to reproduce this bug.
It's not perfect, but it's easy to improve in the future.
It'll also run for as long as possible on every merge on the main branch.
Co-authored-by: Tamo <tamo@meilisearch.com>
Co-authored-by: Loïc Lecrenier <loic.lecrenier@icloud.com>
3550: Delete documents by filter r=irevoire a=dureuill
# Prototype `prototype-delete-by-filter-0`
Usage:
A new route is available under `POST /indexes/{index_uid}/documents/delete` that allows you to delete your documents by filter.
The expected payload looks like that:
```json
{
"filter": "doggo = bernese",
}
```
It'll then enqueue a task in your task queue that'll delete all the documents matching this filter once it's processed.
Here is an example of the associated details;
```json
"details": {
"deletedDocuments": 53,
"originalFilter": "\"doggo = bernese\""
}
```
----------
# Pull Request
## Related issue
Related to https://github.com/meilisearch/meilisearch/issues/3477
## What does this PR do?
### User standpoint
- Modifies the `/indexes/{:indexUid}/documents/delete-batch` route to accept either the existing array of documents ids, or a JSON object with a `filter` field representing a filter to apply. If that latter variant is used, any document matching the filter will be deleted.
### Implementation standpoint
- (processing time version) Adds a new BatchKind that is not autobatchable and that performs the delete by filter
- Reuse the `documentDeletion` task with a new `originalFilter` detail that replaces the `providedIds` detail.
## Example
<details>
<summary>Sample request, response and task result</summary>
Request:
```
curl \
-X POST 'http://localhost:7700/indexes/index-10/documents/delete-batch' \
-H 'Content-Type: application/json' \
--data-binary '{ "filter" : "mass = 600"}'
```
Response:
```
{
"taskUid": 3902,
"indexUid": "index-10",
"status": "enqueued",
"type": "documentDeletion",
"enqueuedAt": "2023-02-28T20:50:31.667502Z"
}
```
Task log:
```json
{
"uid": 3906,
"indexUid": "index-12",
"status": "succeeded",
"type": "documentDeletion",
"canceledBy": null,
"details": {
"deletedDocuments": 3,
"originalFilter": "\"mass = 600\""
},
"error": null,
"duration": "PT0.001819S",
"enqueuedAt": "2023-03-07T08:57:20.11387Z",
"startedAt": "2023-03-07T08:57:20.115895Z",
"finishedAt": "2023-03-07T08:57:20.117714Z"
}
```
</details>
## Draft status
- [ ] Error handling
- [ ] Analytics
- [ ] Do we want to reuse the `delete-batch` route in this way, or create a new route instead?
- [ ] Should the filter be applied at request time or when the deletion task is processed?
- The first commit in this PR applies the filter at request time, meaning that even if a document is modified in a way that no longer matches the filter in a later update, it will be deleted as long as the deletion task is processed after that update.
- The other commits in this PR apply the filter only when the asynchronous deletion task is processed, meaning that documents that match the filter at processing time are deleted even if they didn't match the filter at request time.
- [ ] If keeping the filter at request time, find a more elegant way to recover the user document ids from the internal document ids. The current way implemented in the first commit of this PR involves getting all the documents matching the filter, looking for the value of their primary key, and turning it into a string by copy-pasting routines found in milli...
- [ ] Security consideration, if any
- [ ] Fix the tests (but waiting until product questions are resolved)
- [ ] Add delete by filter specific tests
Co-authored-by: Louis Dureuil <louis@meilisearch.com>
Co-authored-by: Tamo <tamo@meilisearch.com>
