-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 353
obstore delete_dir #3310
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
Open
slowjazz
wants to merge
8
commits into
zarr-developers:main
Choose a base branch
from
slowjazz:obstore-delete-dir
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
+25
−0
Open
obstore delete_dir #3310
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
8 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
8017d6b
obstore delete_dir
slowjazz 9ebbd58
add cl
slowjazz 146297c
add a delete test
slowjazz 2450594
Merge branch 'main' into obstore-delete-dir
d-v-b 2e99a4d
use obstore list and collect_async
slowjazz 019f500
Merge branch 'main' into obstore-delete-dir
slowjazz c7c67eb
Merge branch 'main' into obstore-delete-dir
d-v-b 93b1a22
Merge branch 'main' into obstore-delete-dir
d-v-b File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1 @@ | ||
Add obstore implementation of delete_dir. |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
By the way, you could potentially make this faster by not needing to wait until the list fully finishes to start deleting files. You could do a concurrent map over each batch returned from the
list
. You have the tradeoff between needing to wait for thelist
to fully finish before starting deletes vs needing to runconcurrent_map
in batches instead of all at once. But note you can also customize thechunk_size
oflist
I don't know in practice which approach is better.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
My initial motivation for this approach was that listing upfront is certainly less complex than interleaving list/delete (granted, the difference is small), while being similarly performant, in theory.
I ran a basic benchmark (courtesy of claude) with this kind of impl and got these results (one run each):
Assuming the alternate impl looks about right, I'd be biased towards the current impl.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
these results were a bit surprising. I reran after setting
chunk_size=10_000
in the second impl, in which both impls would then have similar perf (~5s). So it seems like callingconcurrent_map
as few times as possible is desirable. Though in effect, this strategy just converges to fetching all the keys upfront, it seems.