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

Batch operations in the tree service #1447

Open
Tracked by #1322
fyrchik opened this issue May 27, 2022 · 0 comments · Fixed by #1621
Open
Tracked by #1322

Batch operations in the tree service #1447

fyrchik opened this issue May 27, 2022 · 0 comments · Fixed by #1621
Labels
blocked Can't be done because of something enhancement Improving existing functionality I4 No visible changes neofs-storage Storage node application issues performance More of something per second S3 Minimally significant U3 Regular

Comments

@fyrchik
Copy link
Contributor

fyrchik commented May 27, 2022

After #1431 we started to use bolt batches for optimizing concurrent operations execution.
However the can gain even more benefit if we also do some batching one level above.
Consider operations with the following timestamps: 4, 3, 5, 2.
Right now it will be like this:

  1. do 4
  2. undo 4, do 3, do 4
  3. do 5
  4. undo 5, undo 4, undo 3, do 2, do 3, do 4, do 5

After this PR we should behave as follows (assuming 2 values are in a single batch):

  1. do 3, do 4
  2. undo 4, undo 3, do 2, do 3, do 4, do 5
@roman-khimov roman-khimov added blocked Can't be done because of something S3 Minimally significant I4 No visible changes enhancement Improving existing functionality labels Dec 21, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
blocked Can't be done because of something enhancement Improving existing functionality I4 No visible changes neofs-storage Storage node application issues performance More of something per second S3 Minimally significant U3 Regular
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants