planner: consider using instance level plan cache #54472
Conversation
ti-chi-bot
bot
added
release-note-none
|
Hi @qw4990. Thanks for your PR. PRs from untrusted users cannot be marked as trusted with I understand the commands that are listed here. Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository. |
|
/test pull-integration-ddl-test |
|
@qw4990: Cannot trigger testing until a trusted user reviews the PR and leaves an In response to this:
Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository. |
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #54472 +/- ##
=================================================
- Coverage 72.8169% 56.0635% -16.7534%
=================================================
Files 1541 1663 +122
Lines 435962 608397 +172435
=================================================
+ Hits 317454 341089 +23635
- Misses 98881 244002 +145121
- Partials 19627 23306 +3679
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
|
|
/approve |
| @@ -291,7 +291,6 @@ func NewPlanCacheKey(sctx sessionctx.Context, stmt *PlanCacheStmt) (key, binding | |||
|
|
|||
| hash := make([]byte, 0, len(stmt.StmtText)*2) // TODO: a Pool for this | |||
| hash = append(hash, hack.Slice(stmtDB)...) | |||
| hash = codec.EncodeInt(hash, int64(vars.ConnectionID)) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
even the session level plan doesn't encode connection id any more?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, each session has its own separated Session Plan Cache, so this connectionID is unnecessary in this case as well.
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: AilinKid, easonn7, hawkingrei 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 |
[LGTM Timeline notifier]Timeline:
|
|
/retest |
What problem does this PR solve?
Issue Number: ref #54057
Problem Summary: planner: consider using instance level plan cache
What changed and how does it work?
Check List
Tests
Side effects
Documentation
Release note
Please refer to Release Notes Language Style Guide to write a quality release note.