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

Garbage collect UIDs—draft for feedback #1736

Draft
wants to merge 12 commits into
base: next
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

itamarst
Copy link
Contributor

@itamarst itamarst commented Aug 7, 2019

This is a sketch of implementation for #1402. I haven't actually tested it manually yet, but wanted to get some feedback.

  1. Am I on the right track?
  2. Anything obvious I'm missing?
  3. Any thoughts on testing, besides manual testing?

Thank you!

Eduardo95 and others added 12 commits December 18, 2018 09:54
OpenTSDB#1458)

* For branch next, add an expression function named FirstDifference, which calculates the first difference of a time series. I noticed there is MovingAverage calculation, so I thought maybe I can enrich the mathematics functions into that.

* add some unit tests for FirstDifference
- Add RpcResponder for handling callbacks asynchronously
UTILS:
 - Add two convenient methods in Config

Signed-off-by: Chris Larsen <[email protected]>
@BrokenWingsIcarus
Copy link

distributed processing?

@BrokenWingsIcarus
Copy link

Store it in distributed cache middleware through plug-in modification?

@BrokenWingsIcarus
Copy link

It's a big project.

@deamerfire
Copy link

I'm a newbie, and I want to know if it would be better to do garbage collection with offline batch processing, like spark. Then make a union of the uid used or generated during the processing and the results of offline processing. If it doesn't work, please ignore it, hahaha

@johann8384
Copy link
Member

I know this is now ancient. I've been away from the project for a long time and the bulk of the team is working on 3.0. This looks good, did you do any further development on it?

@itamarst
Copy link
Contributor Author

itamarst commented Jan 6, 2021

I did not; I looked into 3.0, but at the time it was not usable in any way.

@johann8384 johann8384 force-pushed the next branch 2 times, most recently from a47781e to e6dd3f3 Compare December 12, 2024 18:29
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.

8 participants