You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Description of the problem including expected versus actual behavior:
When I run a query with an aggregation the execution ist much slower against a elasticsearch server 7.13 than against 7.12.
With 7.13 the query is executed in an average von 4.8 ms
With 7.12 the query is executed in an average von 0.1 ms
I'm not sure if this is a problem of the NEST client or the elastic server. It this is the wrong place can you please move the report to correct repository.
Hi @MartinDemberger. Thanks for raising this and the comprehensive repro code. I made some modifications to analyse results over multiple searches, and did manage to reproduce this. After speaking to our search engineers they believe this is the result of a known issue which is fixed in this PR which will be released in 7.14.0. I ran a further test against a pre-release version of 7.14.0 and indeed, the performance regression is removed. In fact, the results are looking faster overall.
NEST/Elasticsearch.Net version:
NEST 7.12.1
Elasticsearch version:
7.13.0
.NET runtime version:
net5.0
Operating system version:
Windows 10
Description of the problem including expected versus actual behavior:
When I run a query with an aggregation the execution ist much slower against a elasticsearch server 7.13 than against 7.12.
With 7.13 the query is executed in an average von 4.8 ms
With 7.12 the query is executed in an average von 0.1 ms
I'm not sure if this is a problem of the NEST client or the elastic server. It this is the wrong place can you please move the report to correct repository.
Steps to reproduce:
https://gist.github.com/MartinDemberger/a58465ba5ddc2042ae1756040b2318df
Expected behavior
The runtime should be almost equal
Provide
ConnectionSettings
(if relevant):Provide
DebugInformation
(if relevant):The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: