Pat Allan on 15 Sep, 2020 12:28 AM
The plan limits don’t have any impact on data being available or not in such a manner, and I’m not seeing any errors coming through either. Can you let me know what the name of your app is, and I can investigate further.
Pat Allan on 15 Sep, 2020 03:58 AM
Thanks for the app name. I’m not spotting any issues thus far… the indexing process you’re running daily is successfully processing each of the indices. Also, even though it has no impact, you’re well under the plan limits anyway.
Are the records that aren’t coming through always the same ones? Do they appear after the indexing process has run, or is the problem persisting? Can you talk through a specific example, which model is involved, any filters, etc? I’m wondering if either the index setup or search query needs some tweaking.
Gordon B. Isnor
on 15 Sep, 2020 02:27 PM
- It appears that it’s newer records that are affected
- The problem is persistent
- Search works for the book model up to the record with ID 757 –
e.g. Book.search “9781773382104”
- There’s a gap in primary keys after that, with records resuming at ID
- All records above 790 are not available via search – e.g. Book.search
I assume that my client deleted the records 758 - 779 for some reason (I
can do some research and see if I can find out what that missing block is)
–– now I’m wondering if that gap is somehow causing trouble…
Pat Allan on 15 Sep, 2020 02:53 PM
First, I’ve confirmed that book records above 757 weren’t being returned, in particular 790. And then I checked the SQL queries that the indexer runs, and they should be returning that record. There are 426 books in your database, and the indexer output says 426 books are stored in Sphinx. So the fact it wasn’t there is very odd.
Then I ran the indexer process manually - again, it says 426 books - and the record for 790 is now there (and matches by ISBN13). I don’t think I’ve done anything different to what’s already happening, so it’s really very odd. I’m happy that the result is there now, but the fact it wasn’t previously - even with daily indexing - is something I can’t yet explain.
Also: the gap shouldn’t have had any impact at all, so I don’t think you need to worry about the deleted books.
It’s approaching 1am here, so I’m going to sleep on this and see if any inspiration comes to me.
Gordon B. Isnor
on 15 Sep, 2020 09:16 PM
- We do seem to be on the latest version of flying-sphinx and
- I have updated to Sphinx 2.2.11
- The only missing records I am aware of is those, but I can take a look
at some other models to see if I can discover that anything else is going
- Let me know if you have any ideas about how those records were getting
lost in the shuffle