Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

TS.RANGE BUCKETTIMESTAMP option at 'low' or 'high' causes fatal error #1494

Closed
wolfwfr opened this issue Jul 11, 2023 · 3 comments
Closed

TS.RANGE BUCKETTIMESTAMP option at 'low' or 'high' causes fatal error #1494

wolfwfr opened this issue Jul 11, 2023 · 3 comments

Comments

@wolfwfr
Copy link

wolfwfr commented Jul 11, 2023

We are running redis v2.6.2 with redis-timeseries v1.8.10 and are running into an issue with regard to the BUCKETTIMESTAMP option of the TS.RANGE command.

When using BUCKETTIMESTAMP high or low, the server closes the connection.
When using BUCKETTIMESTAMP -, +, ~, or mid the server returns the expected response.

I followed the documentation at:
https://redis.io/commands/ts.range/

Example query:

ts.range my_redis_key 1688996093000 1689082493000  AGGREGATION avg 1200000 BUCKETTIMESTAMP high

Looking at the documentation and the fact that the mid value seems to work, this seems to be a bug.

For us this isn't a pressing concern, I just wanted to provide the feedback.

@LiorKogan
Copy link
Member

@wolfwfr thank you for the report

I can see that there are two issues here:

  1. We need to fix our documentation: it should be start and end instead of low and high
  2. We are missing an internal check when the parsing fails. This is something we should fix.

@wolfwfr
Copy link
Author

wolfwfr commented Jul 11, 2023

@LiorKogan Thank you for the quick reply, I'm happy I could help.

@OfirMos
Copy link
Contributor

OfirMos commented Jul 13, 2023

This is the fix PR:
#1496

@OfirMos OfirMos closed this as completed Jul 13, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants