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

feat: 15448: In-memory virtual maps support #15575

Open
wants to merge 17 commits into
base: develop
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

artemananiev
Copy link
Member

Fix summary:

  • In-memory virtual maps support is implemented

Fixes: #15448
Signed-off-by: Artem Ananev [email protected]

@artemananiev artemananiev added Performance Issues related to performance concerns. Platform Virtual Map Platform Data Structures Platform Tickets pertaining to the platform labels Sep 20, 2024
@artemananiev artemananiev added this to the v0.56 milestone Sep 20, 2024
@artemananiev artemananiev self-assigned this Sep 20, 2024
@artemananiev artemananiev requested review from a team as code owners September 20, 2024 21:23
@artemananiev artemananiev changed the title feat: 15448: Optimize flushes for short living objects feat: 15448: In-memory virtual maps support Sep 20, 2024
Copy link

codecov bot commented Sep 20, 2024

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 75.71429% with 34 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 63.35%. Comparing base (bea1d1f) to head (e5db1ad).
Report is 4 commits behind head on develop.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
...ds/virtualmap/internal/cache/VirtualNodeCache.java 69.23% 13 Missing and 19 partials ⚠️
.../virtualmap/internal/pipeline/VirtualPipeline.java 81.81% 2 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files

Impacted file tree graph

@@              Coverage Diff              @@
##             develop   #15575      +/-   ##
=============================================
+ Coverage      63.31%   63.35%   +0.03%     
- Complexity     20136    20174      +38     
=============================================
  Files           2531     2536       +5     
  Lines          94018    94122     +104     
  Branches        9834     9849      +15     
=============================================
+ Hits           59528    59631     +103     
+ Misses         30901    30892       -9     
- Partials        3589     3599      +10     
Files with missing lines Coverage Δ
...lds/virtualmap/internal/cache/ConcurrentArray.java 74.56% <100.00%> (+3.65%) ⬆️
...rtualmap/internal/merkle/VirtualMapStatistics.java 59.42% <ø> (-0.04%) ⬇️
...ds/virtualmap/internal/merkle/VirtualRootNode.java 57.77% <100.00%> (+0.32%) ⬆️
...rlds/virtualmap/internal/pipeline/VirtualRoot.java 0.00% <ø> (ø)
.../virtualmap/internal/pipeline/VirtualPipeline.java 60.90% <81.81%> (+3.41%) ⬆️
...ds/virtualmap/internal/cache/VirtualNodeCache.java 69.39% <69.23%> (+1.68%) ⬆️

... and 25 files with indirect coverage changes

Impacted file tree graph

Copy link

codacy-production bot commented Sep 20, 2024

Coverage summary from Codacy

See diff coverage on Codacy

Coverage variation Diff coverage
+0.04% (target: -1.00%) 89.29%
Coverage variation details
Coverable lines Covered lines Coverage
Common ancestor commit (bea1d1f) 96837 62979 65.04%
Head commit (e5db1ad) 96889 (+52) 63048 (+69) 65.07% (+0.04%)

Coverage variation is the difference between the coverage for the head and common ancestor commits of the pull request branch: <coverage of head commit> - <coverage of common ancestor commit>

Diff coverage details
Coverable lines Covered lines Diff coverage
Pull request (#15575) 140 125 89.29%

Diff coverage is the percentage of lines that are covered by tests out of the coverable lines that the pull request added or modified: <covered lines added or modified>/<coverable lines added or modified> * 100%

See your quality gate settings    Change summary preferences

Codacy stopped sending the deprecated coverage status on June 5th, 2024. Learn more

Copy link
Contributor

@anthony-swirldslabs anthony-swirldslabs left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Overall the fix looks good. However, I have a very shallow understanding of the implementation details. So it would be good to get another pair of eyes to take a look here.

Just posting a few comments/questions, mostly to clarify things.

Signed-off-by: Artem Ananev <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Artem Ananev <[email protected]>
imalygin
imalygin previously approved these changes Nov 8, 2024
Signed-off-by: Artem Ananev <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Artem Ananev <[email protected]>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Performance Issues related to performance concerns. Platform Data Structures Platform Virtual Map Platform Tickets pertaining to the platform
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

In-memory virtual maps support
3 participants