Mailing-List: contact solr-user-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2015 09:57:31 -0700 (MST)
From: Chris Hostetter <hossman_lucene@fucit.org>
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: cursorMark and timeAllowed are mutually exclusive?
In-Reply-To: <5591740B.4080807@elyograg.org>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1506290943550.29006@tray>
References: <55916047.3060908@uni-bielefeld.de>
 <5591740B.4080807@elyograg.org>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.11 (DEB 23 2013-08-11)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII


: > Have nothing found in the ref guides, docs, wiki, examples about this mutually
: > exclusive parameters.
: >
: > Is this a bug or a feature and if it is a feature, where is the sense of this?

The problem is that if a timeAllowed exceeded situation pops up, you won't 
get a nextCursorMark to use -- or the one you get might be wrong, and 
could trigger infinit looping.


code doesn't really know about hte cursorMark code, so if a timeAllowed 
"exceeded" siutation pops up, you might not get a nextCursorMark in your 
response, which i considered unacceptible.  if you ask for a cursorMark, 
you get a cursor mark.  if you ask for a cursor mark and include other 
options that make it possible we can't do that, it's an error.

With a bit of work, both could probably be supported in combination -- but 
for now it's untested, and thus unsupported, so we put in that error 
message to make it clear and to guard end users against the risk of 
nonsensical results.

>> Yes, I'm using timeAllowed which is set in my requestHandler as
>> invariant to 60000 (60 seconds) as a limit to "killer searches".

Your best is porbably to confine your cursorMark searches to an alternate 
request handler, not used by your normal arbitrary queries, that doesn't 
have the timeAllowed invariant.


-Hoss
http://www.lucidworks.com/