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

enhance: Use mvcc timestamp as guarantee ts if set #38980

Merged

Conversation

congqixia
Copy link
Contributor

When MvccTimestamp is set, it could be used as guarantee timestamp directly instead of new ts allocated by scheduler reducing the waiting time when delegator has tsafe lag

When MvccTimestamp is set, it could be used as guarantee timestamp
directly instead of new ts allocated by scheduler reducing the waiting
time when delegator has tsafe lag

Signed-off-by: Congqi Xia <[email protected]>
@sre-ci-robot sre-ci-robot added approved size/XS Denotes a PR that changes 0-9 lines. labels Jan 3, 2025
@mergify mergify bot added dco-passed DCO check passed. kind/enhancement Issues or changes related to enhancement labels Jan 3, 2025
Copy link

codecov bot commented Jan 3, 2025

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 81.13%. Comparing base (4245c5b) to head (dc04c2f).
Report is 10 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files

Impacted file tree graph

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master   #38980   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   81.12%   81.13%           
=======================================
  Files        1388     1388           
  Lines      196363   196364    +1     
=======================================
+ Hits       159296   159312   +16     
+ Misses      31470    31463    -7     
+ Partials     5597     5589    -8     
Components Coverage Δ
Client 79.12% <ø> (ø)
Core 69.53% <ø> (ø)
Go 83.09% <100.00%> (+<0.01%) ⬆️
Files with missing lines Coverage Δ
internal/proxy/task_query.go 80.74% <100.00%> (+0.03%) ⬆️

... and 27 files with indirect coverage changes

@mergify mergify bot added the ci-passed label Jan 3, 2025
@czs007
Copy link
Collaborator

czs007 commented Jan 5, 2025

/approve
/lgtm

@sre-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: congqixia, czs007

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

@sre-ci-robot sre-ci-robot merged commit 7128e36 into milvus-io:master Jan 5, 2025
20 checks passed
congqixia added a commit to congqixia/milvus that referenced this pull request Jan 6, 2025
When MvccTimestamp is set, it could be used as guarantee timestamp
directly instead of new ts allocated by scheduler reducing the waiting
time when delegator has tsafe lag

Signed-off-by: Congqi Xia <[email protected]>
congqixia added a commit to congqixia/milvus that referenced this pull request Jan 6, 2025
When MvccTimestamp is set, it could be used as guarantee timestamp
directly instead of new ts allocated by scheduler reducing the waiting
time when delegator has tsafe lag

Signed-off-by: Congqi Xia <[email protected]>
sre-ci-robot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 7, 2025
…9019)

Cherry pick from master
pr: #38980
When MvccTimestamp is set, it could be used as guarantee timestamp
directly instead of new ts allocated by scheduler reducing the waiting
time when delegator has tsafe lag

Signed-off-by: Congqi Xia <[email protected]>
@congqixia congqixia deleted the enhance/use_mvccts_as_gaurantee_ts branch January 13, 2025 06:16
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
approved ci-passed dco-passed DCO check passed. kind/enhancement Issues or changes related to enhancement lgtm size/XS Denotes a PR that changes 0-9 lines.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants