This repository was archived by the owner on Jul 19, 2023. It is now read-only.
Avoid missed records in a high volume scenario #96
Conversation
This file contains 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 was referenced Aug 13, 2021
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
A fairly sizeable rewrite of how the sincedb works, full details in the ARCHITECTURE.md
This resolves #74 where records were going missing in a high-volume situation
The change is that rather than have a single "this was the last timestamp for some log group" the change is to maintain a window of N minutes worth of events and use it to:
It replaces my last PR for this, as it still had some problems PR#92