-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 86
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
Rework rel copy task scheduling and improve copy performance #1621
Conversation
Codecov ReportPatch coverage:
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #1621 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 92.00% 82.18% -9.82%
==========================================
Files 715 716 +1
Lines 26075 26042 -33
==========================================
- Hits 23989 21402 -2587
- Misses 2086 4640 +2554
☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
: copyDescription{copyDescription}, outputDirectory{std::move(outputDirectory)}, | ||
taskScheduler{taskScheduler}, catalog{catalog}, | ||
tableSchema{catalog.getReadOnlyVersion()->getTableSchema(table->getTableID())}, | ||
table{table}, nodesStatisticsAndDeletedIDs{nodesStatisticsAndDeletedIDs}, numRows{0} {} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Unify the term usage of row
and tuple
. I would prefer tuple
.
Major changes:
NodeCopyExecutor
andRelCopyExecutor
. These two no longer extend from a base class.TableCopyExecutor
is turned into a utils classTableCopyUtils
.NodeCopier
, which further simplifiesNodeCopyExecutor
.On my local laptop (M1 macbook air, 16GB RAM, 8 threads, default setting), the performance boost on copying ldbc10 knows and likesComment compared to v0.0.3 are: