There are a couple of open issues related to the timeAllowed parameter.
For instance it currently doesn't work on conjunction with the
cursorMark parameter [1]. And on Solr 7 it doesn't work at all [2].

But other than that, when users have a lot of query flexibility, it's a
pretty good idea to limit them somehow. You don't want your users to
blow up your servers.

[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-14413

[2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-9882

 - Bram

On 16/09/2020 03:04, Mark Robinson wrote:
> Thanks Dominique!
> So is this parameter generally recommended or not. I wanted to try with a
> value of 10s. We are not using it now.
> My goal is to prevent a query from running more than 10s on the solr server
> and choking it.
> 
> What is the general recommendation.
> 
> Thanks!
> Mark
> 
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 5:38 PM Dominique Bejean <dominique.bej...@eolya.fr>
> wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>>
>> 1. Yes, your analysis is correct
>>
>> 2. Yes, it can occurs too with very slow query.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Dominique
>>
>> Le mar. 15 sept. 2020 à 15:14, Mark Robinson <mark123lea...@gmail.com> a
>> écrit :
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> When in a sample query I used "timeAllowed" as low as 10mS, I got value
>> for
>>>
>>> "numFound" as say 2000, but no docs were returned. But when I increased
>> the
>>>
>>> value for timeAllowed to be in seconds, never got this scenario.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I have 2 qns:-
>>>
>>> 1. Why does numFound have a value like say 2000 or even 6000 but no
>>>
>>> documents actually returned. During document collection is calculation of
>>>
>>> numFound done first and doc collection later?. Is doc list empty
>> because,by
>>>
>>> the time doc collection started the timeAllowed cut off took effect?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2. If I give timeAllowed a value say, 10s or above do you think the above
>>>
>>> scenario of valid count displayed in numFound, but doc list empty can
>> ever
>>>
>>> occur still, as there is more time before cut-off to retrieve at least
>> one
>>>
>>> doc ?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>> Mark
>>>
>>>
>>
> 

Reply via email to