-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3.7k
[enhancement](merge-on-write) consider version count on size-based cu compaction policy #25352
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
[enhancement](merge-on-write) consider version count on size-based cu compaction policy #25352
Conversation
… compaction policy
|
clang-tidy review says "All clean, LGTM! 👍" |
|
run buildall |
|
LGTM |
|
TeamCity be ut coverage result: |
|
(From new machine)TeamCity pipeline, clickbench performance test result: |
hust-hhb
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
|
PR approved by anyone and no changes requested. |
liaoxin01
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
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
|
PR approved by at least one committer and no changes requested. |
… compaction policy (apache#25352)
… compaction policy (#25352)
… compaction policy (apache#25352)
… compaction policy (apache#25352)
Proposed changes
Issue Number: close #xxx
For MoW table, if there's too many versions, the delete bitmap will grow to a very big size, which may cause the tablet meta too big and the
save_metaoperation too slow.If the rowset should not promotion according to it's disk size, we should also consider it's version count.
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...