Should we consider "Shard not available exception" as regular search failures

[jimczi]

Today when we detect that no replicas are available for a shard we mark the shard as failed but don't count it as failed in the search response header. We also don't return the exception in the response so the only way to detect that a set of replicas is not available for a shard is to check whether total is equal to successful in the response. While this could be documented properly I wonder if we should not treat this exception as a regular failure in order to simplify the handling/detection of search failures. This behavior is quite old so this would be a breaking change but I doubt that a lot of users are aware of this. We also have a way to be not lenient when shard failures are detected (accept_partial_results) so it feels more natural to me to consider this kind of failure as any other exceptions.

[elasticmachine]

Pinging @elastic/es-search (:Search/Search)

[elasticmachine]

Pinging @elastic/es-distributed (:Distributed/Distributed)

[jimczi]

Here's the place in code where we ignore the ShardNotAvailableException:

elasticsearch/server/src/main/java/org/elasticsearch/action/search/AbstractSearchAsyncAction.java

Line 418 in 4e6756f

if (TransportActions.isShardNotAvailableException(e) == false) {

And we compute the number of failed shards here:

elasticsearch/server/src/main/java/org/elasticsearch/action/search/SearchResponse.java

Line 186 in 4e6756f

// we don't return totalShards - successfulShards, we don't count "no shards available" as a failed shard, just don't

Note that in this case we return the number of shard failures minus the ShardNotAvailableException
that we ignored in the previous snippet.

[ywelsch]

I'm not sure if we should add the "shard not available" exceptions to the failed counter. The main reason against this is that we would then also have to return these boring exceptions as part of the "failures" array. I wonder if we should instead return a field called unavailable which counts these. We would then have total = successful + failed + unavailable.

[markharwood]

We would then have total = successful + failed + unavailable.

Practically speaking, clients like Kibana should be telling their users if the results are lacking in any way. This isn't just about failed vs unavailable - it also includes "timed out" flags.

It seems trappy that end-users might not appreciate some important results might be missing because the client application's logic fails to check all the various flags elasticsearch provides.

Maybe we can make this easier with a partial_results boolean that is the summarisation of the more detailed reasons why this can happen (failed/timed out/unavailable)

[jimczi]

I'm not sure if we should add the "shard not available" exceptions to the failed counter. The main reason against this is that we would then also have to return these boring exceptions as part of the "failures" array.

While boring they also contain the name of the index and shard id that is not available. I think it's an important piece of information to return. IMO the best way for a consumer to check if a result is partial or not is to check if total == successful, that's simple and should be emphasized in the documentation. However every failure should be considered equal and reported, otherwise the results look inconsistent and we rely on documentation to educate users.

Maybe we can make this easier with a partial_results boolean that is the summarisation of the more detailed reasons why this can happen (failed/timed out/unavailable)

I am not sure we should consider the timeout and terminate_after case the same as failures.
Results may be partial in both cases but you still need to look at the individual flags to differentiate a partial result due to a failure from one that timed out or use terminate after. In terms of correctness I'd also say that a failure is different than a requested timeout because unlike the timeout, the failure is unexpected. IMO it should remain simple in the general case, successful not equal to total means unexpected failures. For advanced options that are not set by default the documentation should be clear on how to detect if the request met the condition or not but imo we should not try to group them with failures.

[markharwood]

check if total == successful, that's simple

Isn't it total == successful + skipped?
Even if not true, the number of properties returned just emphasises the problem here.

I was looking to provide a flag that had exactly the same yes/no logic that we apply when allow_partial_search_results= false.
The goal is to summarise whether the results can be trusted and are complete - regardless of why that condition may have come about. The low-level details are still there if people want them.

[jimczi]

Isn't it total == successful + skipped?

No, skipped shards are considered successful too.

I was looking to provide a flag that had exactly the same yes/no logic that we apply when allow_partial_search_results= false.

Maybe that's the issue then, we shouldn't apply this flag to the timeout parameter. If it is set in the request the user expects partial results on shards that timed out, otherwise a timeout client side is more appropriate. The more I think of it and the more I want to remove this timeout option. I opened another issue to discuss the options we have #47716 but my point here is that we shouldn't add a new flag just for this feature. It is simple to rely on total == successful in the general case so we should just document it clearly ?