Skip to content

branch-4.1: [improve](metrics) Export file cache remote index byte metrics #65398 - #65439

Merged
yiguolei merged 1 commit into
branch-4.1from
auto-pick-65398-branch-4.1
Jul 21, 2026
Merged

branch-4.1: [improve](metrics) Export file cache remote index byte metrics #65398#65439
yiguolei merged 1 commit into
branch-4.1from
auto-pick-65398-branch-4.1

Conversation

@github-actions

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Cherry-picked from #65398

Issue Number: None

Related PR: None

Problem Summary:

File cache statistics already track the remote-read bytes for inverted
index and segment footer
index data, but BE Doris metrics only export the aggregate
cache/local/remote/peer byte counters.
As a result, these two index-specific remote read costs are visible in
query profile internals but
not exposed from the BE `/metrics` endpoint, which makes them harder to
monitor and alert on in
cloud/file-cache scenarios.

This PR exposes the following two BE metrics:

- `doris_be_inverted_index_bytes_read_from_remote`
- `doris_be_segment_footer_index_bytes_read_from_remote`

The change keeps the existing file cache metrics aggregation path and
extends it in three places:

1. Register the two counters in `DorisMetrics`
2. Extend `FileCacheMetrics::AtomicStatistics` and the
aggregation/update path to accumulate them
3. Export them from the existing metrics hook and cover the behavior
with a BE unit test

### Release note

Add two new BE metrics for file cache remote index read bytes:

- `doris_be_inverted_index_bytes_read_from_remote`
- `doris_be_segment_footer_index_bytes_read_from_remote`

### Check List (For Author)

- Test <!-- At least one of them must be included. -->
    - [x] Regression test
- `./run-regression-test.sh --run -d cloud_p0 -s
test_file_cache_remote_index_byte_metrics -runMode=cloud`
    - [x] Unit Test
- `./run-be-ut.sh --run
--filter=DorisMetricsTest.*:FileCacheProfileReporterTest.*`
    - [ ] Manual test (add detailed scripts or steps below)
    - [ ] No need to test or manual test. Explain why:
- [ ] This is a refactor/code format and no logic has been changed.
        - [ ] Previous test can cover this change.
        - [ ] No code files have been changed.
        - [ ] Other reason <!-- Add your reason?  -->

- Behavior changed:
    - [x] No.
    - [ ] Yes.

- Does this need documentation?
    - [x] No.
- [ ] Yes. <!-- Add document PR link here. eg:
apache/doris-website#1214 -->

### Check List (For Reviewer who merge this PR)

- [ ] Confirm the release note
- [ ] Confirm test cases
- [ ] Confirm document
- [ ] Add branch pick label <!-- Add branch pick label that this PR
should merge into -->
@github-actions
github-actions Bot requested a review from yiguolei as a code owner July 10, 2026 03:19
@hello-stephen

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Thank you for your contribution to Apache Doris.
Don't know what should be done next? See How to process your PR.

Please clearly describe your PR:

  1. What problem was fixed (it's best to include specific error reporting information). How it was fixed.
  2. Which behaviors were modified. What was the previous behavior, what is it now, why was it modified, and what possible impacts might there be.
  3. What features were added. Why was this function added?
  4. Which code was refactored and why was this part of the code refactored?
  5. Which functions were optimized and what is the difference before and after the optimization?

@hello-stephen

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

run buildall

1 similar comment
@hoshinojyunn

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

run buildall

@hello-stephen

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

BE Regression && UT Coverage Report

Increment line coverage 100.00% (14/14) 🎉

Increment coverage report
Complete coverage report

Category Coverage
Function Coverage 72.29% (27128/37529)
Line Coverage 55.33% (289659/523504)
Region Coverage 52.68% (241784/458924)
Branch Coverage 53.91% (104492/193844)

@hello-stephen

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

BE Regression && UT Coverage Report

Increment line coverage 100.00% (14/14) 🎉

Increment coverage report
Complete coverage report

Category Coverage
Function Coverage 72.29% (27128/37529)
Line Coverage 55.33% (289648/523504)
Region Coverage 52.69% (241797/458924)
Branch Coverage 53.90% (104483/193844)

@hello-stephen

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

BE Regression && UT Coverage Report

Increment line coverage 100.00% (14/14) 🎉

Increment coverage report
Complete coverage report

Category Coverage
Function Coverage 69.05% (27075/39212)
Line Coverage 52.50% (288049/548670)
Region Coverage 49.84% (240280/482070)
Branch Coverage 49.87% (103664/207851)

1 similar comment
@hello-stephen

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

BE Regression && UT Coverage Report

Increment line coverage 100.00% (14/14) 🎉

Increment coverage report
Complete coverage report

Category Coverage
Function Coverage 69.05% (27075/39212)
Line Coverage 52.50% (288049/548670)
Region Coverage 49.84% (240280/482070)
Branch Coverage 49.87% (103664/207851)

@yiguolei
yiguolei merged commit b343330 into branch-4.1 Jul 21, 2026
30 of 33 checks passed
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.

3 participants