coord: seal all persisted tables in a single operation for efficiency #7607
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
ruchirK
reviewed
Jul 29, 2021
| let updates = vec![ | ||
| (c1s1.stream_id(), data[..1].to_vec()), | ||
| (c1s2.stream_id(), data[1..].to_vec()), | ||
| ]; | ||
| block_on(|res| atomic.write_atomic(updates, res))?; | ||
| block_on(|res| multi.write_atomic(updates, res))?; | ||
| assert_eq!(c1s1_read.snapshot()?.read_to_end(), data[..1].to_vec()); | ||
| assert_eq!(c1s2_read.snapshot()?.read_to_end(), data[1..].to_vec()); | ||
|
|
||
| // Cannot write to streams not specified during construction. | ||
| let (c1s3, _) = client1.create_or_load("3")?; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
might be worth adding a seal test here as well?
|
Anecdotally, I ran this locally with mz_metrics persisted and sealing now seems to be sufficiently fast to keep it from hosing the process (which is not true before this PR). |
danhhz
commented
Jul 29, 2021
| let updates = vec![ | ||
| (c1s1.stream_id(), data[..1].to_vec()), | ||
| (c1s2.stream_id(), data[1..].to_vec()), | ||
| ]; | ||
| block_on(|res| atomic.write_atomic(updates, res))?; | ||
| block_on(|res| multi.write_atomic(updates, res))?; | ||
| assert_eq!(c1s1_read.snapshot()?.read_to_end(), data[..1].to_vec()); | ||
| assert_eq!(c1s2_read.snapshot()?.read_to_end(), data[1..].to_vec()); | ||
|
|
||
| // Cannot write to streams not specified during construction. | ||
| let (c1s3, _) = client1.create_or_load("3")?; |
maddyblue
approved these changes
Jul 29, 2021
This deserves nemesis coverage, but that'll be a followup.
The multi-seal ability is newly exposed by persist in the preceding commit. It would be unacceptably performance to recompute a new MultiStreamHandle for every call to `advance_local_inputs` so instead store it on Catalog and recompute it when it changes (tables are added removed). Then, since we now have a nicely maintained MultiStreamHandle available, use it in end transaction instead of constructing a one-off one there.
danhhz
force-pushed
the
persist_seal_multi
branch
from
fbaf0b6
to
fdb2078
Compare
|
TFTRs! |
29 tasks
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The multi-seal ability is newly exposed by persist in the preceding
commit. It would be unacceptably performance to recompute a new
MultiStreamHandle for every call to
advance_local_inputsso insteadstore it on Catalog and recompute it when it changes (tables are added
removed). Then, since we now have a nicely maintained MultiStreamHandle
available, use it in end transaction instead of constructing a one-off
one there.