Resolve influxDBConnector issues #249
Merged
Conversation
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
johanneshiry
force-pushed
the
jh/#248-fix-influxDbSink
branch
from
64297c7 to
0c42045
Compare
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## dev #249 +/- ##
============================================
+ Coverage 77.81% 77.85% +0.04%
- Complexity 1900 1904 +4
============================================
Files 239 239
Lines 7738 7737 -1
Branches 743 743
============================================
+ Hits 6021 6024 +3
+ Misses 1289 1284 -5
- Partials 428 429 +1
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
mia-krause
reviewed
Nov 18, 2020
Member
Author
|
!test |
2 similar comments
Member
Author
|
!test |
Member
Author
|
!test |
mia-krause
previously approved these changes
Nov 18, 2020
Member
Author
|
!test |
mia-krause
approved these changes
Nov 18, 2020
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Resolves #247 and #248
@mia-krause in contrast to the existing implementation I keep the session open once it has been available to a
InfluxDbConnectorinstead of creating a new on for each#getSession()call. . Based on the influxdb-java docs this is the recommended way to do. Reason for this is that the old implementation of#getSession()created a massive overhead when running concurrent writing operations as well as the application of the batch size was useless, bc for#persist(C entity)each session has been used exactly for one call and then closed.I don't know if this breaks with one of your concepts but might you could provide some insights why you initially wanted to use a new session for each persist call?