-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[BUG] Missing bucket in terms aggregation with missing value #17391
Comments
Hi @andrross @msfroh @prudhvigodithi could you help take a look at this? Thanks! |
@jainankitk Can you take first stab at this? |
Hi @sandeshkr419 @jainankitk could you help with this issue? Thanks! |
@peterzhuamazon @sandeshkr419 @noCharger I have tested with the newest
|
@noCharger Can you take a look at this again? Are you able to reproduce it? If so, please share the exact commit that you're running. If you're able to reproduce it as a failing integration test or rest-spec test that would be great too. |
My test on latest core main:
|
@kkewwei @andrross @peterzhuamazon This issue reproduced from alpha1 snapshot https://ci.opensearch.org/ci/dbc/distribution-build-opensearch/3.0.0-alpha1/10829/linux/x64/tar/builds/opensearch/dist/opensearch-min-3.0.0-alpha1-linux-x64.tar.gz Steps:
Result:
|
We just built another new build:
|
Changing index mapping from text to keyword somehow can query back the
|
I'm able to reproduce this with a simplified setup:
I do not get the "no_nickname" bucket. It appears this was introduced with the upgrade to Lucene 10 in commit 7c46f8f. If I go to the previous commit on main then I get the "no_nickname" bucket in the results as expected. |
Can also confirm when change back to non-lucene10 commit the results are up. |
After some experimenting, it seems that if I take the second word out of the nickname field (change |
@andrross I'm debugging, can you assign it to me? |
Describe the bug
When executing a terms aggregation with a specified missing value, the expected bucket for documents without the specified field is not appearing in the result. This is identified via an SQL IT comparing v3.0.0 alpha1 to non-alpha1 snapshot.
Related component
No response
To Reproduce
Example docs
Example Query
Example result on 3.0.0 alpha1
Expected behavior
Expect result (from non-alpha1)
Additional Details
No response
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: