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

[opt](paimon)Optimize the storage location of the serialized paimon table #44274

Open
wants to merge 10 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

wuwenchi
Copy link
Contributor

What problem does this PR solve?

Related PR: #43167

Previously, the serialized paimon table was placed in TPaimonFileDesc, which resulted in each split storing a serialized paimon table. It will wasted a lot of space if a table has lots of split.
Now change the storage location of the serialized paimon table so that all splits of a table can share the data.

Check List (For Author)

  • Test

    • Regression test
    • Unit Test
    • Manual test (add detailed scripts or steps below)
    • No need to test or manual test. Explain why:
      • This is a refactor/code format and no logic has been changed.
      • Previous test can cover this change.
      • No code files have been changed.
      • Other reason
  • Behavior changed:

    • No.
    • Yes.
  • Does this need documentation?

    • No.
    • Yes.

Check List (For Reviewer who merge this PR)

  • Confirm the release note
  • Confirm test cases
  • Confirm document
  • Add branch pick label

@doris-robot
Copy link

Thank you for your contribution to Apache Doris.
Don't know what should be done next? See How to process your PR.

Please clearly describe your PR:

  1. What problem was fixed (it's best to include specific error reporting information). How it was fixed.
  2. Which behaviors were modified. What was the previous behavior, what is it now, why was it modified, and what possible impacts might there be.
  3. What features were added. Why was this function added?
  4. Which code was refactored and why was this part of the code refactored?
  5. Which functions were optimized and what is the difference before and after the optimization?

@wuwenchi
Copy link
Contributor Author

run buildall

Copy link
Contributor

clang-tidy review says "All clean, LGTM! 👍"

@doris-robot
Copy link

TeamCity be ut coverage result:
Function Coverage: 38.01% (9899/26042)
Line Coverage: 29.19% (82781/283568)
Region Coverage: 28.33% (42515/150071)
Branch Coverage: 24.89% (21551/86592)
Coverage Report: http://coverage.selectdb-in.cc/coverage/2666998c527f12686c4708895b1707456d61e24a_2666998c527f12686c4708895b1707456d61e24a/report/index.html

@wuwenchi
Copy link
Contributor Author

run buildall

Copy link
Contributor

clang-tidy review says "All clean, LGTM! 👍"

@doris-robot
Copy link

TeamCity be ut coverage result:
Function Coverage: 38.02% (9898/26035)
Line Coverage: 29.20% (82786/283537)
Region Coverage: 28.33% (42518/150055)
Branch Coverage: 24.90% (21556/86584)
Coverage Report: http://coverage.selectdb-in.cc/coverage/4ebaebdc73f1ddd5f779932a15d0b7450801a2da_4ebaebdc73f1ddd5f779932a15d0b7450801a2da/report/index.html

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants