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

enhance: dimension of hot scheduler #4513

Open
Tracked by #5691
lhy1024 opened this issue Dec 28, 2021 · 2 comments
Open
Tracked by #5691

enhance: dimension of hot scheduler #4513

lhy1024 opened this issue Dec 28, 2021 · 2 comments
Labels
type/feature-request Categorizes issue or PR as related to a new feature.

Comments

@lhy1024
Copy link
Contributor

lhy1024 commented Dec 28, 2021

Feature Request

Describe your feature request related problem

After some tests, since each query consumes different resources, if we just try to make the number of queries consistent, there is a possibility that the number of queries is the same between each store, but the cpu is different.

Also, this may have something to do with the distribution of tables.

Describe the feature you'd like

Perhaps we need to give feedback on scheduling based on cpu, or consider the dimension of the table, or we give them different weights

Describe alternatives you've considered

Teachability, Documentation, Adoption, Migration Strategy

@lhy1024 lhy1024 added the type/feature-request Categorizes issue or PR as related to a new feature. label Dec 28, 2021
@lhy1024
Copy link
Contributor Author

lhy1024 commented Mar 3, 2022

Can we consider adding the factor of cpu when dealing with the conflict of the two dimensions? @HunDunDM

@lhy1024
Copy link
Contributor Author

lhy1024 commented Nov 18, 2022

Although qps and byte are both uniform, but their cpu is different

image
image

We can collect unified pool cpu by query from tikv, but cannot collect grpc cpu by region and query now. And we still need to collect cpu about write.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
type/feature-request Categorizes issue or PR as related to a new feature.
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant