Change event prefix to preserve order under load #89
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
When there are a lot of events streamed from a worker, it's possible to have two batches coming for the same timestamp (which is a timestamp of the event on the worker). This way the existing logic would mess up the order because `index` and the random number doesn't guarantee the order. To fix this I've changed the format of the prefix for the event to include tro things: 1. Timestamp in nanoseconds of the injection time on the controller so two sequential batches will have guaranteed order unless they are processed within a nanosecond. 2. Made the `index` being fixed length with trailing zeros, so they are properly lexicographically sorted (`000001`, `000002`, ...).
edigaryev
approved these changes
Jun 5, 2023
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
When there are a lot of events streamed from a worker, it's possible to have two batches coming for the same timestamp (which is a timestamp of the event on the worker). This way the existing logic would mess up the order because
indexand the random number doesn't guarantee the order.To fix this I've changed the format of the prefix for the event to include tro things:
indexbeing fixed length with trailing zeros, so they are properly lexicographically sorted (000001,000002, ...).Fixes #88