-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 23.5k
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
Fail XREAD[GROUP] if duplicate keys were given #11705
Open
guybe7
wants to merge
2
commits into
redis:unstable
Choose a base branch
from
guybe7:xread_map
base: unstable
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
Small question which might not be super important- does that implies that the command is no longer O(NM) where N=number of keys and M is the number of msgs returned by each key, but rather O(N^2+NM)?
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.
good point, i'll update the json files
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.
considering N is expected to be rather low, maybe it shouldn't be there?
@itamarhaber?
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.
or if it isn't expected to be always rather low, maybe this change is wrong..
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.
also with the new blocking mechanism we will repeat this when reprocessing... might be able to optimize in case this is run during unblock?
Alternative might also be to keep some bit filter on the keys (like simple bloom filter), but again in the worse case it will still be (N^2)
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.
yes, we can skip that validation in that case, but in order to do that we'll probably need to add a new flag to the client struct, saying we are reprocessing after unblocking... sounds good?
i'm wondering if there are any other expensive validations/calculations we can skip in other commands... can you please have a quick look?
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.
I am sure we could spare some checks, but I will argue that every command should have arity check function (could even be generated automatically from json), so we could better way to separate the 2 calls and fail the command on invalid arguments at much earlier stage. However that is a big change, and I guess making this case O(2(N^2)+NM) is not the critical thing.
To you question - the only flag that can currently be used is the CLIENT_UNBLOCKED flag... but that might change in the future
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.
Shall we restrict this PR to just adding validation for duplicate key access in XREAD[GROUP] and probably file a separate issue/PR for avoiding revalidation during reprocessing ?
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.
yeah, we can.. that way we can maybe handle the re-validation optimization earlier.