Skip to content

branch-3.0-pick: [Fix](merge-on-write) should calculate delete bitmaps between segments before skip if tablet is in NOT_READY state in flush phase #48056 #48085

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom
Merged
dataroaring merged 2 commits into from
Feb 19, 2025
Merged

branch-3.0-pick: [Fix](merge-on-write) should calculate delete bitmaps between segments before skip if tablet is in NOT_READY state in flush phase #48056 #48085

dataroaring merged 2 commits into from
Feb 19, 2025

Conversation

@bobhan1
Copy link
Contributor

@bobhan1 bobhan1 commented Feb 19, 2025

pick #48056

@bobhan1
[Fix](merge-on-write) should calculate delete bitmaps between segment…
adbf244 
…s before skip if tablet is in `NOT_READY` state in flush phase (apache#48056)

Problem Summary:

considering the following situation:
1. heavy sc start on BE and change tablet's state to `NOT_READY`
2. load1 skip to calculate delete bitmaps in flush phase because the
tablet's state is `NOT_READY`
3. heavy sc finished and change tablet's state to `RUNNING`
4. load1 calculate delete bitmaps in publish phase for converted
historical rowsets

If load1 write multi segments, this will cause duplicate key because it
forget to calculate delete bitmaps between segments in any phase.
@bobhan1 bobhan1 requested a review from dataroaring as a code owner February 19, 2025 08:53
@hello-stephen
Copy link
Contributor

hello-stephen commented Feb 19, 2025

Thank you for your contribution to Apache Doris.
Don't know what should be done next? See How to process your PR.

Please clearly describe your PR:

  1. What problem was fixed (it's best to include specific error reporting information). How it was fixed.
  2. Which behaviors were modified. What was the previous behavior, what is it now, why was it modified, and what possible impacts might there be.
  3. What features were added. Why was this function added?
  4. Which code was refactored and why was this part of the code refactored?
  5. Which functions were optimized and what is the difference before and after the optimization?

@bobhan1
Copy link
Contributor Author

bobhan1 commented Feb 19, 2025

run buildall

@bobhan1
Copy link
Contributor Author

bobhan1 commented Feb 19, 2025

run performance

dataroaring
dataroaring approved these changes Feb 19, 2025
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@dataroaring dataroaring left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

@github-actions github-actions bot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by one committer. label Feb 19, 2025
@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Feb 19, 2025

PR approved by at least one committer and no changes requested.

@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Feb 19, 2025

PR approved by anyone and no changes requested.

@dataroaring dataroaring merged commit bb8c296 into apache:branch-3.0 Feb 19, 2025
19 of 23 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@dataroaring dataroaring dataroaring approved these changes

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

approved Indicates a PR has been approved by one committer. reviewed

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants

@bobhan1 @hello-stephen @dataroaring