3889: Display the total number of tasks matching a filter/query r=dureuill a=Kerollmops
This PR returns a new field on the `/tasks` routes. The `total` field exposes the total number of tasks that matches the given filter/query. It is useful to display information on a user interface and can help understand when progress is made in processing tasks, i.e., the total number of tasks on `/tasks?statuses=succeeded` will increase over time.
Fixes#3888.
- [ ] Update the specs fo the `/tasks` route.
## How have I implemented it?
I found it much easier to run two times the task filtering system. Once with the original `from` and `limit` parameters and a second time without. The second call will return the total number of tasks that match the query, not only the number of tasks on the current page.
So far, in terms of performance, there doesn't seem to be any issue. I tried different filters with something like 250k tasks. Note that there is a limit of 1M tasks in the queue.
Co-authored-by: Clément Renault <clement@meilisearch.com>
3891: Fix the way we compute the 99th percentile r=dureuill a=Kerollmops
This PR fixes how we compute the 99th percentile by avoiding using float and doing the multiplication and divisions in the correct order avoiding going out of the buffer of timings. You can see the issue on [this rust playground](https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=debug&edition=2021).
When there are a very small number of successful requests, the number is so tiny that the 99th percentile calculus sometimes gives an index out of the buffer. In this example, the `1`/`1.0` represent the number of timings you collected (one). As you can see, the float computation gives us the index `1.0`, with is out of a vector of only one value. This makes the engine generate a `null` value.
```rust
1 * 99 / 100 = 0 // with integers
0.99_f64 * (1.0 - 1.0) + 1.0 = 1.0 // with floats
```
Co-authored-by: Clément Renault <clement@meilisearch.com>
3877: update the total_received properties of multiple events r=dureuill a=dureuill
# Pull Request
## Related issue
Fixes#3814
## What does this PR do?
-fix name of `total_received` for several events
Co-authored-by: Tamo <tamo@meilisearch.com>
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>
3867: Add a new link to the cloud pricing page r=curquiza a=Kerollmops
This PR promotes the Cloud by adding a link to the Pricing page to the startup message!
<img width="1002" alt="Capture d’écran 2023-06-29 à 17 40 22" src="https://github.com/meilisearch/meilisearch/assets/3610253/b0528c24-fcc2-43ff-a6a1-3ed91716663b">
Co-authored-by: Clément Renault <clement@meilisearch.com>
3866: Update charabia v0.8.0 r=dureuill a=ManyTheFish
# Pull Request
Update Charabia:
- enhance Japanese segmentation
- enhance Latin Tokenization
- words containing `_` are now properly segmented into several words
- brackets `{([])}` are no more considered as context separators so word separated by brackets are now considered near together for the proximity ranking rule
- fixes#3815
- fixes#3778
- fixes [product#151](https://github.com/meilisearch/product/discussions/151)
> Important note: now the float numbers are segmented around the `.` so `3.22` is segmented as [`3`, `.`, `22`] but the middle dot isn't considered as a hard separator, which means that if we search `3.22` we find documents containing `3.22`
Co-authored-by: ManyTheFish <many@meilisearch.com>
3864: Remove `/experimental-features` verbs that weren't in the PRD r=dureuill a=dureuill
Removes:
- POST `/experimental-features`
- DELETE `/experimental-features`
keeping only:
- PATCH `/experimental-features`
- GET `/experimental-features`
The two routes that are described in the PRD.
Following `@guimachiavelli's` [question](https://github.com/meilisearch/documentation/issues/2482#issuecomment-1611845372) about the POST route.
Co-authored-by: Louis Dureuil <louis@meilisearch.com>
3861: Add "meilisearch" prefix to last metrics that were missing it r=Kerollmops a=dureuill
# Pull Request
## Related issue
Related to #3790
## What does this PR do?
- change implementation to follow the spec on metrics name
- regenerate grafana dashboard from the code
## PR checklist
Please check if your PR fulfills the following requirements:
- [ ] Does this PR fix an existing issue, or have you listed the changes applied in the PR description (and why they are needed)?
- [ ] Have you read the contributing guidelines?
- [ ] 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: Louis Dureuil <louis@meilisearch.com>
3834: Define searchable fields at runtime r=Kerollmops a=ManyTheFish
## Summary
This feature allows the end-user to search in one or multiple attributes using the search parameter `attributesToSearchOn`:
```json
{
"q": "Captain Marvel",
"attributesToSearchOn": ["title"]
}
```
This feature act like a filter, forcing Meilisearch to only return the documents containing the requested words in the attributes-to-search-on. Note that, with the matching strategy `last`, Meilisearch will only ensure that the first word is in the attributes-to-search-on, but, the retrieved documents will be ordered taking into account the word contained in the attributes-to-search-on.
## Trying the prototype
A dedicated docker image has been released for this feature:
#### last prototype version:
```bash
docker pull getmeili/meilisearch:prototype-define-searchable-fields-at-search-time-1
```
#### others prototype versions:
```bash
docker pull getmeili/meilisearch:prototype-define-searchable-fields-at-search-time-0
```
## Technical Detail
The attributes-to-search-on list is given to the search context, then, the search context uses the `fid_word_docids`database using only the allowed field ids instead of the global `word_docids` database. This is the same for the prefix databases.
The database cache is updated with the merged values, meaning that the union of the field-id-database values is only made if the requested key is missing from the cache.
### Relevancy limits
Almost all ranking rules behave as expected when ordering the documents.
Only `proximity` could miss-order documents if all the searched words are in the restricted attribute but a better proximity is found in an ignored attribute in a document that should be ranked lower. I put below a failing test showing it:
```rust
#[actix_rt::test]
async fn proximity_ranking_rule_order() {
let server = Server::new().await;
let index = index_with_documents(
&server,
&json!([
{
"title": "Captain super mega cool. A Marvel story",
// Perfect distance between words in an ignored attribute
"desc": "Captain Marvel",
"id": "1",
},
{
"title": "Captain America from Marvel",
"desc": "a Shazam ersatz",
"id": "2",
}]),
)
.await;
// Document 2 should appear before document 1.
index
.search(json!({"q": "Captain Marvel", "attributesToSearchOn": ["title"], "attributesToRetrieve": ["id"]}), |response, code| {
assert_eq!(code, 200, "{}", response);
assert_eq!(
response["hits"],
json!([
{"id": "2"},
{"id": "1"},
])
);
})
.await;
}
```
Fixing this would force us to create a `fid_word_pair_proximity_docids` and a `fid_word_prefix_pair_proximity_docids` databases which may multiply the keys of `word_pair_proximity_docids` and `word_prefix_pair_proximity_docids` by the number of attributes in the searchable_attributes list. If we think we should fix this test, I'll suggest doing it in another PR.
## Related
Fixes#3772
Co-authored-by: Tamo <tamo@meilisearch.com>
Co-authored-by: ManyTheFish <many@meilisearch.com>
