This repository has been archived by the owner on Mar 25, 2022. It is now read-only.
[WIP] performance improvements for high cardinality #7
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
desa
reviewed
Feb 8, 2017
|
|
||
| var numTags int | ||
| s.template, numTags = formatTemplate(tmplt) | ||
| s.tagCardinalities = tagCardinalityPartition(numTags, primeFactorization(cardinality)) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is this call not problematic with 100M series?
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
influx-stresscurrently pre-allocates all series and points when starting up, which makes running high cardinality loads nigh on impossible locally.The PR helps somewhat with this problem by only generating batches of the series and points we need as and when needed.
Series are generated in batches of 100,000, while line-protocol points are generated in batches of 500,000.
We may want to tweak these numbers; I haven't tested. However previously, writing 100M series ate up over 18GB of RAM, while doing it this way seems to consume a few hundred.
I'm not sure if it's impacted the maximum throughput significantly yet however.