Skip to content

Implement Size() measuring size estimation for execution cache #6681

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

Merged
merged 7 commits into from
Mar 14, 2025

Conversation

timl3136
Copy link
Member

What changed?
Implement Size() measuring size estimation for execution cache, add empty size estimation function for mutableState and shardContext

Why?
We want to modernize existing cadence common cache implement to a bytes-based system. That means we need to have a method to measure each entry (which is currently accepting any generic interface). We found the "Reflect" package provides a measuring function but runtime is too slow to be used in cache operations. Therefore, we will require all usages to implement the Size() function in their cache logic if they want to migrate to the new bytes-based system.

In order to seamless transition from the current cache system with an entry-based model, the implementation and rollout will be done in following phases:

  1. Define the Sizeable interface
  2. Implement Sizeable for cadence-history service
    a. Implement Size() for ExecutionCache <-- This PR
    b. Implement Size() for EventCache
  3. Implement bytes-based cache system
  4. Enable new cache system for usage in cadence-history service
  5. Implement and enable new cache system for the remaining usages

How did you test it?
Unit tests

Potential risks
No risk since this PR only adds read-only function that is not used.

Release notes

Documentation Changes

@timl3136 timl3136 merged commit af47afa into cadence-workflow:master Mar 14, 2025
22 checks passed
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.

4 participants