-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5.9k
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
store/copr: revert pr/35975, do not reduce concurrency for keep order coprocessor request (#55141) #55177
base: release-8.1
Are you sure you want to change the base?
store/copr: revert pr/35975, do not reduce concurrency for keep order coprocessor request (#55141) #55177
Conversation
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
@ti-chi-bot: The following test failed, say
Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard. 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/test-infra repository. I understand the commands that are listed here. |
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## release-8.1 #55177 +/- ##
================================================
Coverage ? 71.1736%
================================================
Files ? 1465
Lines ? 422346
Branches ? 0
================================================
Hits ? 300599
Misses ? 101257
Partials ? 20490
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
|
This is an automated cherry-pick of #55141
What problem does this PR solve?
Issue Number: close #54969
Problem Summary:
What changed and how does it work?
In the past, #35975 reduce coprocessor concurrency to 2 for the keep order query.
But recently we meet an oncall case that the change cause performance regression.
Balance the memory usage and concurrency is a difficult job,
we need more tests and expirements to reach the conclusion.Currently we can simply set TiFlash to not reduce concurrency, when a user using TiFlash, the tidb memory usage would not be a top concern (their hardware must be better).Check List
Tests
See comments below
One line change, just revert part of the previous optimization.
Side effects
Documentation
Release note
Please refer to Release Notes Language Style Guide to write a quality release note.