-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 28
Ldz/improve event store1015 #3119
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
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
This reverts commit 5c6f1d0.
|
[FORMAT CHECKER NOTIFICATION] Notice: To remove the 📖 For more info, you can check the "Contribute Code" section in the development guide. |
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
Summary of ChangesHello @lidezhu, I'm Gemini Code Assist1! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed! This pull request primarily focuses on enhancing the performance and efficiency of the event store. It achieves this by significantly increasing the concurrency of write operations and implementing a more sophisticated event batching strategy that considers both the count and total size of events. Additionally, it augments event metadata with key and value lengths, which could be beneficial for monitoring or further optimizations. Highlights
Using Gemini Code AssistThe full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips. Invoking Gemini You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either
Customization To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a Limitations & Feedback Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here. You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension. Footnotes
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Code Review
This pull request introduces performance improvements to the event store. Key changes include increasing the number of write workers per database and adding batch size limits (batchEventMaxCount and batchEventMaxSize) to optimize write operations. Additionally, KeyLen, ValueLen, and OldValueLen fields are now populated in RawKVEntry to potentially improve downstream processing efficiency. The changes are well-reasoned and should enhance performance. I have a couple of minor suggestions to improve code style and consistency.
| batchEventMaxCount int = 128 | ||
| batchEventMaxSize int = 64 * 1024 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
In Go, it's idiomatic to declare constants without an explicit type when the type can be inferred from the value. This makes them untyped constants, which are more flexible. Consider removing the explicit int type.
| batchEventMaxCount int = 128 | |
| batchEventMaxSize int = 64 * 1024 | |
| batchEventMaxCount = 128 | |
| batchEventMaxSize = 64 * 1024 |
| value := entry.GetValue() | ||
| oldValue := entry.GetOldValue() | ||
| return common.RawKVEntry{ | ||
| OpType: opType, | ||
| Key: entry.Key, | ||
| Value: entry.GetValue(), | ||
| StartTs: entry.StartTs, | ||
| CRTs: entry.CommitTs, | ||
| RegionID: regionID, | ||
| OldValue: entry.GetOldValue(), | ||
| OpType: opType, | ||
| KeyLen: uint32(len(entry.GetKey())), | ||
| ValueLen: uint32(len(value)), | ||
| OldValueLen: uint32(len(oldValue)), | ||
| Key: entry.Key, | ||
| Value: value, | ||
| StartTs: entry.StartTs, | ||
| CRTs: entry.CommitTs, | ||
| RegionID: regionID, | ||
| OldValue: oldValue, | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
To improve consistency and avoid a redundant method call, you can store entry.Key in a variable and use it for both calculating the length and assigning the value. This aligns with how value and oldValue are handled.
key := entry.Key
value := entry.GetValue()
oldValue := entry.GetOldValue()
return common.RawKVEntry{
OpType: opType,
KeyLen: uint32(len(key)),
ValueLen: uint32(len(value)),
OldValueLen: uint32(len(oldValue)),
Key: key,
Value: value,
StartTs: entry.StartTs,
CRTs: entry.CommitTs,
RegionID: regionID,
OldValue: oldValue,
}
What problem does this PR solve?
Issue Number: close #xxx
What is changed and how it works?
Check List
Tests
Questions
Will it cause performance regression or break compatibility?
Do you need to update user documentation, design documentation or monitoring documentation?
Release note