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

Storage: Add the time cost about stream in local/remote #8676

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Mar 7, 2024

Conversation

JaySon-Huang
Copy link
Contributor

What problem does this PR solve?

Issue Number: ref #8675

Problem Summary:

What is changed and how it works?

Check List

Tests

  • Unit test
  • Integration test
  • Manual test (add detailed scripts or steps below)
  • No code

Side effects

  • Performance regression: Consumes more CPU
  • Performance regression: Consumes more Memory
  • Breaking backward compatibility

Documentation

  • Affects user behaviors
  • Contains syntax changes
  • Contains variable changes
  • Contains experimental features
  • Changes MySQL compatibility

Release note

None

@ti-chi-bot ti-chi-bot bot added release-note-none Denotes a PR that doesn't merit a release note. size/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files. labels Jan 9, 2024
@JaySon-Huang
Copy link
Contributor Author

/run-build-release comment=true

@sre-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

sre-bot commented Jan 9, 2024

@JaySon-Huang
Copy link
Contributor Author

/run-build-release comment=true

@sre-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

sre-bot commented Jan 9, 2024

@JaySon-Huang JaySon-Huang self-assigned this Jan 24, 2024
@JaySon-Huang JaySon-Huang force-pushed the add_streams_cost_details branch from 490bbad to ba28f6e Compare January 30, 2024 14:56
Copy link
Member

@CalvinNeo CalvinNeo left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

lgtm

@ti-chi-bot ti-chi-bot bot added needs-1-more-lgtm Indicates a PR needs 1 more LGTM. approved labels Feb 18, 2024
@@ -57,12 +65,21 @@ void TableScanStatistics::collectExtraRuntimeDetail()
{
/// remote read
updateTableScanDetail(cop_stream->getConnectionProfileInfos());
// TODO: Can not get the execution time of remote read streams?
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Doesn't cop_stream->getProfileInfo() work?

@ti-chi-bot ti-chi-bot bot added lgtm and removed needs-1-more-lgtm Indicates a PR needs 1 more LGTM. labels Mar 7, 2024
Copy link
Contributor

ti-chi-bot bot commented Mar 7, 2024

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: CalvinNeo, JinheLin

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

Copy link
Contributor

ti-chi-bot bot commented Mar 7, 2024

[LGTM Timeline notifier]

Timeline:

  • 2024-02-18 02:44:19.326207228 +0000 UTC m=+152348.073830352: ☑️ agreed by CalvinNeo.
  • 2024-03-07 08:00:13.513283462 +0000 UTC m=+326840.535529848: ☑️ agreed by JinheLin.

Copy link
Contributor

ti-chi-bot bot commented Mar 7, 2024

@JaySon-Huang: Your PR was out of date, I have automatically updated it for you.

At the same time I will also trigger all tests for you:

/run-all-tests

trigger some heavy tests which will not run always when PR updated.

If the CI test fails, you just re-trigger the test that failed and the bot will merge the PR for you after the CI passes.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the ti-community-infra/tichi repository.

@JinheLin
Copy link
Contributor

JinheLin commented Mar 7, 2024

/run-unit-test

@JinheLin
Copy link
Contributor

JinheLin commented Mar 7, 2024

[2024-03-07T09:15:14.392Z] /home/jenkins/agent/workspace/tiflash-build-common/tiflash/dbms/src/Flash/Pipeline/Schedule/Events/tests/gtest_event.cpp:643: Failure
[2024-03-07T09:15:14.392Z] Expected: (exec_context.getQueryProfileInfo().getIOPendingTimeNs()) > (0), actual: 0 vs 0
[2024-03-07T09:15:14.392Z] [2024/03/07 17:15:13.856 +08:00] [ERROR] [Exception.cpp:96] ["std::exception. Code: 1001, type: testing::AssertionException, e.what() = /home/jenkins/agent/workspace/tiflash-build-common/tiflash/dbms/src/Flash/Pipeline/Schedule/Events/tests/gtest_event.cpp:643: Failure\nExpected: (exec_context.getQueryProfileInfo().getIOPendingTimeNs()) > (0), actual: 0 vs 0"] [source="virtual void DB::tests::EventTestRunner_profile_Test::TestBody()"] [thread_id=1]

https://ci.pingcap.net/blue/rest/organizations/jenkins/pipelines/tiflash-ghpr-unit-tests/runs/12865/nodes/73/steps/78/log/?start=0

@JinheLin
Copy link
Contributor

JinheLin commented Mar 7, 2024

/run-unit-test

@ti-chi-bot ti-chi-bot bot merged commit ee471e9 into pingcap:master Mar 7, 2024
6 checks passed
@JaySon-Huang JaySon-Huang deleted the add_streams_cost_details branch March 7, 2024 12:44
JaySon-Huang added a commit to JaySon-Huang/tiflash that referenced this pull request Apr 3, 2024
@ti-chi-bot ti-chi-bot added the needs-cherry-pick-release-7.5 Should cherry pick this PR to release-7.5 branch. label Apr 3, 2024
@ti-chi-bot
Copy link
Member

In response to a cherrypick label: new pull request created to branch release-7.5: #8901.

ti-chi-bot pushed a commit to ti-chi-bot/tiflash that referenced this pull request Apr 3, 2024
JaySon-Huang added a commit to JaySon-Huang/tiflash that referenced this pull request May 7, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
approved lgtm needs-cherry-pick-release-7.5 Should cherry pick this PR to release-7.5 branch. release-note-none Denotes a PR that doesn't merit a release note. size/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants