Skip to content
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

Implement the ability to write in batches in M3DB database #1157

Merged
merged 87 commits into from
Nov 16, 2018

Conversation

richardartoul
Copy link
Contributor

No description provided.

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Nov 6, 2018

Codecov Report

Merging #1157 into master will decrease coverage by <.1%.
The diff coverage is 78.9%.

Impacted file tree graph

@@           Coverage Diff            @@
##           master   #1157     +/-   ##
========================================
- Coverage    71.5%   71.5%   -0.1%     
========================================
  Files         726     728      +2     
  Lines       60839   61085    +246     
========================================
+ Hits        43540   43683    +143     
- Misses      14523   14602     +79     
- Partials     2776    2800     +24
Flag Coverage Δ
#aggregator 81.6% <ø> (ø) ⬆️
#cluster 86% <ø> (ø) ⬆️
#collector 78.1% <ø> (ø) ⬆️
#dbnode 80.9% <78.9%> (-0.3%) ⬇️
#m3em 73.2% <ø> (ø) ⬆️
#m3ninx 75.3% <ø> (ø) ⬆️
#m3nsch 51.1% <ø> (ø) ⬆️
#metrics 18.3% <ø> (ø) ⬆️
#msg 75.1% <ø> (+0.1%) ⬆️
#query 64.2% <ø> (ø) ⬆️
#x 75.2% <ø> (ø) ⬆️

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update a2fab37...dedfb58. Read the comment docs.

@richardartoul richardartoul changed the title [WIP - Dont review] - Implement the ability to write in batches in M3DB database [WIP] - Implement the ability to write in batches in M3DB database Nov 6, 2018
@@ -45,17 +45,25 @@ var (
timeZero = time.Time{}
)

// WritesBatch is a batch of Write.
type WritesBatch []Write
Copy link
Collaborator

@robskillington robskillington Nov 7, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Can we wrap this up in a struct (which we could then later pool)?

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Can we also rename it to WriteBatch and drop the s? Just since in other places where we have write batches that's what we call them.

Tags ident.Tags // FOLLOWUP(prateek): wire Tags to commit log writer
Tags ident.Tags

TagIter ident.TagIterator
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Just curious, why do we have both now? Is it an either/or argument?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Its an either/or kind of thing. It kind of sucks but you have to turn this into a partially filled struct thing so you don't have ot convert one massive slice of one thing into another massive slice of another thing. I'll do some cleanup, add some comments, and try to see if i can explain / document this in a sane manner

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Can we create a wrapper type TagsOrTagsIter struct and perhaps a type TagsType uint enum like to specify which one to use?

Copy link
Collaborator

@robskillington robskillington left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM for now

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants