* For consistency, use tclsh for the script as well
* Ignore leaked fds that originate from grandparent process, since we
only care about fds redis-sentinel itself is responsible for
* Check every test iteration to catch problems early
* Some cleanups, e.g. parameterization of file name, etc.
* For consistency, use tclsh for the script as well
* Ignore leaked fds that originate from grandparent process, since we
only care about fds redis-sentinel itself is responsible for
* Check every test iteration to catch problems early
* Some cleanups, e.g. parameterization of file name, etc.
The test failed from time to time on Github actions.
We think it's possible that on the module's blocking timeout
time tracking test, the timeout is happening prior we issue the
RedisModule_BlockedClientMeasureTimeStart(bc) on the
background thread. If that is the case one possible solution
is to increase the timeout.
Increasing to 200ms to 500ms to see if nightly stops failing.
The test failed from time to time on Github actions.
We think it's possible that on the module's blocking timeout
time tracking test, the timeout is happening prior we issue the
RedisModule_BlockedClientMeasureTimeStart(bc) on the
background thread. If that is the case one possible solution
is to increase the timeout.
Increasing to 200ms to 500ms to see if nightly stops failing.
When (remaining == (total_size - index)), element will definitely be random to.
But when rand() == RAND_MAX, the element will miss, this will trigger assert
in serverAssert(ziplistRandomPairsUnique(zsetobj->ptr, count, keys, vals) == count).
When (remaining == (total_size - index)), element will definitely be random to.
But when rand() == RAND_MAX, the element will miss, this will trigger assert
in serverAssert(ziplistRandomPairsUnique(zsetobj->ptr, count, keys, vals) == count).
It is inefficient to repeatedly pick a single random element from a
ziplist.
For CASE4, which is when the user requested a low number of unique
random picks from the collectoin, we used thta pattern.
Now we use a different algorithm that picks unique elements from a
ziplist, and guarentee no duplicate but doesn't provide random order
(which is only needed in the non-unique random picks case)
Unrelated changes:
* change ziplist count and indexes variables to unsigned
* solve compilation warnings about uninitialized vars in gcc 10.2
Co-authored-by: xinluton <xinluton@qq.com>
It is inefficient to repeatedly pick a single random element from a
ziplist.
For CASE4, which is when the user requested a low number of unique
random picks from the collectoin, we used thta pattern.
Now we use a different algorithm that picks unique elements from a
ziplist, and guarentee no duplicate but doesn't provide random order
(which is only needed in the non-unique random picks case)
Unrelated changes:
* change ziplist count and indexes variables to unsigned
* solve compilation warnings about uninitialized vars in gcc 10.2
Co-authored-by: xinluton <xinluton@qq.com>
