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

WIP: [GA Merge-on-Read] enabling compaction for MoR related delete files #246

Closed
wants to merge 0 commits into from

Conversation

cbb330
Copy link
Collaborator

@cbb330 cbb330 commented Nov 1, 2024

Summary

developing in public, if reviewing keep in mind that everything here will change

Changes

  • Client-facing API Changes
  • Internal API Changes
  • Bug Fixes
  • New Features
  • Performance Improvements
  • Code Style
  • Refactoring
  • Documentation
  • Tests

For all the boxes checked, please include additional details of the changes made in this pull request.

Testing Done

  • Manually Tested on local docker setup. Please include commands ran, and their output.
  • Added new tests for the changes made.
  • Updated existing tests to reflect the changes made.
  • No tests added or updated. Please explain why. If unsure, please feel free to ask for help.
  • Some other form of testing like staging or soak time in production. Please explain.

For all the boxes checked, include a detailed description of the testing done for the changes made in this pull request.

Additional Information

  • Breaking Changes
  • Deprecations
  • Large PR broken into smaller PRs, and PR plan linked in the description.

For all the boxes checked, include additional details of the changes made in this pull request.

numOfObjectsInDirectory++;
sumOfTotalDirectorySizeInBytes += status.getLen();
}
ContentSummary contentSummary = fs.getContentSummary(new Path(table.location()));
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

getContentSummary can cause namenode issues. It obtains a lock throughout the process of this computation and this will have an impact on namenode performance for larger directories. It is as expensive as ls but atleast ls drops the lock in between some batching it does internally but getContentSummary will not. This will cause a performance hit and also could be throttled since cost assigned to this could be higher while serving this request.

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