Make sure non-collecting aggs include sub-aggs (backport of #64214) #64247
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Now that we're consistently using
cat_match
to filter which shards werun on we can get this confusing case:
can_match
can recognize will match nodocs. On any shard.
"empty" aggs.
documents.
sub-aggs.
So, without this change, it was quite possible for a search that
happened to match no documents to "throw away" the sub-aggs of a range
and a few other aggs.
We've had this problem for a long, long time but it is more confusing
now because
can_match
is really kicking in and causing us to see caseswhere it looks like you are targeting a lot of shards but you really are
only targeting a couple. It used to be that to get the "no sub-aggs"
behavior you had to explicitly target only shards that didn't map the
target field of the
range
agg. And, like, in that case it isn't toobad because you targeted a sort of degenerate shard. But now that
can_match
is doing its thing you can end up with the confusing stepsabove. It took me several hours to track down what what happening I know
how the individual pieces of all of this works. It took four hours to
figure out how they fit together in this case....
Anyway! This replaces all the aggregator implementations that throw out
the sub-aggregators with ones that keep them. I think this'll be less
confusing in the future.
Closes #64142