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: LanceDB Integration #1749

Merged
merged 9 commits into from
Aug 15, 2024
Merged

feat: LanceDB Integration #1749

merged 9 commits into from
Aug 15, 2024

Conversation

Benedikt-Wolf
Copy link
Contributor

@Benedikt-Wolf Benedikt-Wolf commented Aug 3, 2024

Very basic LanceDB integration for table operations. synchronous only.
#241

  • I have added tests that cover my changes.
  • If adding a new instrumentation or changing an existing one, I've added screenshots from some observability platform showing the change.
  • PR name follows conventional commits format: feat(instrumentation): ... or fix(instrumentation): ....
  • (If applicable) I have updated the documentation accordingly.

Very basic LanceDB integration for table operations. synchronous only.
@nirga nirga changed the title LanceDB Integration feat: LanceDB Integration Aug 6, 2024
Copy link
Member

@nirga nirga left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks @Benedikt-Wolf! Mind rebasing and fixing the merge conflict?


assert span.attributes.get(SpanAttributes.VECTOR_DB_VENDOR) == "lancedb"
assert span.attributes.get(SpanAttributes.VECTOR_DB_OPERATION) == "add"
assert span.attributes.get(SpanAttributes.MILVUS_INSERT_DATA_COUNT) == 2
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Hmm... We don't have a generic one for this? :(

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I don't think so right now, but I'd be happy to discuss how we can genericize VectorDB Operations without losing the small semantic differences between providers.

@nirga nirga merged commit 9672e8a into traceloop:main Aug 15, 2024
7 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.

2 participants