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

fix(batch): make batch range scan sequentially to avoid OOM #15638

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Mar 12, 2024

Conversation

wangrunji0408
Copy link
Contributor

I hereby agree to the terms of the RisingWave Labs, Inc. Contributor License Agreement.

What's changed and what's your intention?

fix #15636

Checklist

  • I have written necessary rustdoc comments
  • I have added necessary unit tests and integration tests
  • I have added test labels as necessary. See details.
  • I have added fuzzing tests or opened an issue to track them. (Optional, recommended for new SQL features Sqlsmith: Sql feature generation #7934).
  • My PR contains breaking changes. (If it deprecates some features, please create a tracking issue to remove them in the future).
  • All checks passed in ./risedev check (or alias, ./risedev c)
  • My PR changes performance-critical code. (Please run macro/micro-benchmarks and show the results.)
  • My PR contains critical fixes that are necessary to be merged into the latest release. (Please check out the details)

Documentation

  • My PR needs documentation updates. (Please use the Release note section below to summarize the impact on users)

Release note

If this PR includes changes that directly affect users or other significant modifications relevant to the community, kindly draft a release note to provide a concise summary of these changes. Please prioritize highlighting the impact these changes will have on users.

Copy link
Contributor

@chenzl25 chenzl25 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM!

// WARN: DO NOT use `select` to execute range scans concurrently
// it can consume too much memory if there're too many ranges.
for range in range_scans {
let stream = Self::execute_range(
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Not sure if it should be a default. I'm thinking a session variable can easily enable / disable this feature.

Copy link
Contributor

@kwannoel kwannoel Mar 12, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Perhaps we can do something like:

if range_scans.len() > some_arbitrary_threshold, 
then do sequential. Else do parallel.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Make it default LGTM. Previously, point-lookup is also performed concurrently, but I changed it to sequential, because lookup-join encountered a similar issue as well.

@wangrunji0408 wangrunji0408 added this pull request to the merge queue Mar 12, 2024
@github-merge-queue github-merge-queue bot removed this pull request from the merge queue due to failed status checks Mar 12, 2024
@chenzl25 chenzl25 added this pull request to the merge queue Mar 12, 2024
Merged via the queue into main with commit a37d538 Mar 12, 2024
34 of 35 checks passed
@chenzl25 chenzl25 deleted the wrj/range-scan-sequentially branch March 12, 2024 15:03
github-actions bot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Mar 12, 2024
wangrunji0408 added a commit that referenced this pull request Mar 12, 2024
chenzl25 pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Mar 13, 2024
jetjinser pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Mar 14, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
type/fix Bug fix
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Batch query with large filter condition, upstream MV with lots of keys fails with CN OOM
3 participants