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

Using local copy of segment instead of downloading from remote #12863

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Apr 15, 2024

Conversation

swaminathanmanish
Copy link
Contributor

@swaminathanmanish swaminathanmanish commented Apr 10, 2024

Whats in the PR:
Local copy of segment is used to extract segment metadata.

Why its needed:
Segment is available locally (segment generation creates it) which can be used to extract metadata. Currently we are downloading segment from deep store which takes ~7-8 seconds per segment of size ~400Mb and there's unnecessary call to deep store. Removing this download, will speed minion execution by orders of seconds to minutes per minion.

@codecov-commenter
Copy link

codecov-commenter commented Apr 10, 2024

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 11.11111% with 8 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 62.04%. Comparing base (59551e4) to head (ce49203).
Report is 290 commits behind head on master.

Files Patch % Lines
.../tasks/BaseMultipleSegmentsConversionExecutor.java 11.11% 8 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##             master   #12863      +/-   ##
============================================
+ Coverage     61.75%   62.04%   +0.28%     
+ Complexity      207      198       -9     
============================================
  Files          2436     2502      +66     
  Lines        133233   136414    +3181     
  Branches      20636    21106     +470     
============================================
+ Hits          82274    84633    +2359     
- Misses        44911    45503     +592     
- Partials       6048     6278     +230     
Flag Coverage Δ
custom-integration1 <0.01% <0.00%> (-0.01%) ⬇️
integration <0.01% <0.00%> (-0.01%) ⬇️
integration1 <0.01% <0.00%> (-0.01%) ⬇️
integration2 0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
java-11 61.99% <11.11%> (+0.28%) ⬆️
java-21 61.92% <11.11%> (+0.30%) ⬆️
skip-bytebuffers-false 62.02% <11.11%> (+0.28%) ⬆️
skip-bytebuffers-true 61.88% <11.11%> (+34.15%) ⬆️
temurin 62.04% <11.11%> (+0.28%) ⬆️
unittests 62.03% <11.11%> (+0.28%) ⬆️
unittests1 46.78% <ø> (-0.11%) ⬇️
unittests2 27.78% <11.11%> (+0.04%) ⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@swaminathanmanish swaminathanmanish changed the title (WIP ...) Using local copy of segment instead of downloading from remote Using local copy of segment instead of downloading from remote Apr 10, 2024
@swaminathanmanish swaminathanmanish changed the title Using local copy of segment instead of downloading from remote (WIP ) Using local copy of segment instead of downloading from remote Apr 10, 2024
@swaminathanmanish swaminathanmanish changed the title (WIP ) Using local copy of segment instead of downloading from remote Using local copy of segment instead of downloading from remote Apr 10, 2024
@swaminathanmanish swaminathanmanish marked this pull request as ready for review April 10, 2024 22:11
@swaminathanmanish
Copy link
Contributor Author

@klsince - Could you take a look?

Copy link
Contributor

@klsince klsince left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

good catch

@klsince klsince merged commit af8fd40 into apache:master Apr 15, 2024
19 checks passed
swaminathanmanish added a commit to swaminathanmanish/pinot that referenced this pull request May 9, 2024
klsince pushed a commit that referenced this pull request May 9, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants