-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3.7k
[feature-wip](unique-key-merge-on-write) speed up publish_txn #11557
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
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
zhannngchen
reviewed
Aug 5, 2022
ccbc414 to
ad47937
Compare
zhannngchen
previously approved these changes
Aug 5, 2022
Contributor
zhannngchen
left a comment
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.
LGTM
Contributor
|
PR approved by anyone and no changes requested. |
2bb522f to
d5468ef
Compare
dataroaring
reviewed
Aug 8, 2022
d5468ef to
0695464
Compare
In our origin design, we calc delete bitmap in publish txn, and this operation will cost too much time as it will load segment data and lookup row key in pre rowset and segments.And publish version task should run in order, so it'll lead to timeout in publish_txn. In this pr, we seperate delete_bitmap calculation to tow part, one of it will be done in flush mem table, so this work can run parallel. And we calc final delete_bitmap in publish_txn, get a rowset_id set that should be included and remove rowsets that has been compacted, the rowset difference between memtable_flush and publish_txn is really small so publish_txn become very fast.In our test, publish_txn cost about 10ms.
0695464 to
abfe0d1
Compare
dataroaring
approved these changes
Aug 8, 2022
Contributor
dataroaring
left a comment
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.
LGTM
Contributor
|
PR approved by at least one committer and no changes requested. |
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.
In our origin design, we calc delete bitmap in publish txn, and this operation
will cost too much time as it will load segment data and lookup row key in pre
rowset and segments.And publish version task should run in order, so it'll lead
to timeout in publish_txn.
In this pr, we seperate delete_bitmap calculation to tow part, one of it will be
done in flush mem table, so this work can run parallel. And we calc final
delete_bitmap in publish_txn, get a rowset_id set that should be included and
remove rowsets that has been compacted, the rowset difference between memtable_flush
and publish_txn is really small so publish_txn become very fast.In our test,
publish_txn cost about 10ms.
Proposed changes
Issue Number: close #xxx
Problem summary
Describe your changes.
Checklist(Required)
Further comments
If this is a relatively large or complex change, kick off the discussion at dev@doris.apache.org by explaining why you chose the solution you did and what alternatives you considered, etc...