-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 334
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
feat: introduce TableRouteCache
to PartitionRuleManager
#3922
feat: introduce TableRouteCache
to PartitionRuleManager
#3922
Conversation
d5b7a23
to
ab505a1
Compare
CompositeTableRouteCacheRef
to PartitionRuleManager
CompositeTableRouteCache
to PartitionRuleManager
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #3922 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 86.00% 85.65% -0.36%
==========================================
Files 963 963
Lines 164516 164789 +273
==========================================
- Hits 141498 141152 -346
- Misses 23018 23637 +619 |
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.
The changes looks good to me. But I'm not sure about other underlying logics (like who should use the cache but not, or who should invalid the cache but not). PTAL @fengjiachun
I'm o_O ing |
CompositeTableRouteCache
to PartitionRuleManager
TableRouteCache
to PartitionRuleManager
I hereby agree to the terms of the GreptimeDB CLA.
Refer to a related PR or issue link (optional)
What's changed and what's your
Introduce
TableRouteCache
toPartitionRuleManager
to reduce overhead of deserializing cached bytes intoTableRoute
.Checklist