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

Use lower per db instance limits for aggregate and fetchTaggedIDs #3527

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
May 27, 2021

Conversation

ryanhall07
Copy link
Collaborator

This has worked well for the FetchTagged endpoint, so rolling out to the
Aggregate and FetchTaggedIDs endpoints as well.

What this PR does / why we need it:

Fixes #

Special notes for your reviewer:

Does this PR introduce a user-facing and/or backwards incompatible change?:


Does this PR require updating code package or user-facing documentation?:


This has worked well for the FetchTagged endpoint, so rolling out to the
Aggregate and FetchTaggedIDs endpoints as well.
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented May 27, 2021

Codecov Report

Merging #3527 (3d884d7) into master (811b3ee) will decrease coverage by 0.0%.
The diff coverage is 22.2%.

Impacted file tree graph

@@           Coverage Diff            @@
##           master   #3527     +/-   ##
========================================
- Coverage    55.9%   55.9%   -0.1%     
========================================
  Files         548     548             
  Lines       61380   61393     +13     
========================================
- Hits        34360   34330     -30     
- Misses      23915   23953     +38     
- Partials     3105    3110      +5     
Flag Coverage Δ
aggregator 57.3% <ø> (ø)
cluster ∅ <ø> (∅)
collector 54.3% <ø> (ø)
dbnode 60.3% <22.2%> (-0.1%) ⬇️
m3em 46.4% <ø> (ø)
metrics 19.8% <ø> (ø)
msg 74.4% <ø> (+0.1%) ⬆️

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


Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 811b3ee...3d884d7. Read the comment docs.

// mock the host queue to return a result with a single series, this results in 3 series total, one per shard.
sess := setupMultipleInstanceCluster(t, ctrl, func(op op, host topology.Host) {
aOp := op.(*aggregateOp)
assert.Equal(t, int64(2), *aOp.request.SeriesLimit)
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

really this is the assertion we care about right?

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This verifies the correct limit was sent. The assertion at the end verifies the results are properly accumulated across shards, with 1 result from each shard for a total of 3

Copy link
Collaborator

@wesleyk wesleyk left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

@ryanhall07 ryanhall07 merged commit 754b5b2 into master May 27, 2021
@ryanhall07 ryanhall07 deleted the rhall-agg-limit branch May 27, 2021 23:20
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