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

Initial capacity on LinkedBlockingQueue inside BatchProcessor #282

Merged

Conversation

andyflury
Copy link

The LinkedBlockingQueue inside BatchProcessor should have an initial capacity. Otherwise we might run into an OutOfMemoryError if the producer is match faster than InfluxDB.

@codecov-io
Copy link

Codecov Report

Merging #282 into master will decrease coverage by -0.08%.

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##             master     #282      +/-   ##
============================================
- Coverage      71.2%   71.12%   -0.08%     
- Complexity      123      124       +1     
============================================
  Files            11       11              
  Lines           698      703       +5     
  Branches         76       77       +1     
============================================
+ Hits            497      500       +3     
- Misses          159      160       +1     
- Partials         42       43       +1
Impacted Files Coverage Δ Complexity Δ
...rc/main/java/org/influxdb/impl/BatchProcessor.java 94.79% <71.42%> (-1.92%) 14 <2> (+1)

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update a7fa63a...1beafd3. Read the comment docs.

@majst01
Copy link
Collaborator

majst01 commented Feb 10, 2017

Thanks for you contribution.

@majst01 majst01 merged commit ca347db into influxdata:master Feb 10, 2017
@andyflury
Copy link
Author

Thanks Stefan, would you mind merging #270 as well. I did add additional test cases, so all new code is covered by tests. However it looks like the CodeCov report is still based on the original code. Not sure how to re-run it. Thanks

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.

None yet

3 participants