| Summary: | Attempts to update a specific search query results in infinite "Please stand by" | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Community] Bugzilla | Reporter: | Tom Lavigne <tlavigne> |
| Component: | Query/Bug List | Assignee: | PnT DevOps Devs <hss-ied-bugs> |
| Status: | CLOSED WONTFIX | QA Contact: | tools-bugs <tools-bugs> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | medium | ||
| Version: | 4.4 | CC: | huiwang, mtahir, qgong |
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | Unspecified | ||
| OS: | Unspecified | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2017-02-01 11:25:19 UTC | Type: | Bug |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
|
Description
Tom Lavigne
2016-01-04 17:33:47 UTC
I tested this as instructed, and the results are as stated. I then added: Classification: Red Hat Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 and reran the search, 19 bugs found in ~5 seconds. The question now is, why doesn't the search timeout like it's supposed to? FYI This relates to the way Postgres handles the search and isn't a code loop, the DB is taking a long time to check the "bug_id NOT IN(~1 million ID's)". Setting the product reduces the number of IDs by a factor or two and thus computes reasonably fast. The proxy was tweaked recently and this query now correctly dies with the "Your query was taking longer than 120 seconds and had to be killed. Please back up and narrow your search criteria ..." message. Given that taking the advice in the message gets a search result I'm going to close this. Jump on Bug 1260009 if you want to pursue improving the search generation. Agreed, sorry should have closed the bug before. I left it open in case you wanted to improve the messaging, which it looks like you have done according to comment #3. Thanks! |