Skip to content

[fix](regression-case) Fix routineload case : test_routine_load_timeout_value#60664

Merged
dataroaring merged 1 commit intoapache:masterfrom
0AyanamiRei:fixcase-test_routine_load_timeout_value
Feb 11, 2026
Merged

[fix](regression-case) Fix routineload case : test_routine_load_timeout_value#60664
dataroaring merged 1 commit intoapache:masterfrom
0AyanamiRei:fixcase-test_routine_load_timeout_value

Conversation

@0AyanamiRei
Copy link
Contributor

@0AyanamiRei 0AyanamiRei commented Feb 11, 2026

What problem does this PR solve?

Issue Number: close #xxx

Related PR: #56930
Problem Summary:

Under the condition where isEof = false, the calculation of the timeout in updateAdaptiveTimeout also needs to take into account Config.routine_load_task_min_timeout_sec.

Release note

None

Check List (For Author)

  • Test

    • Regression test
    • Unit Test
    • 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
  • Behavior changed:

    • No.
    • Yes.
  • Does this need documentation?

    • No.
    • Yes.

Check List (For Reviewer who merge this PR)

  • Confirm the release note
  • Confirm test cases
  • Confirm document
  • Add branch pick label

@Thearas
Copy link
Contributor

Thearas commented Feb 11, 2026

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?

@0AyanamiRei
Copy link
Contributor Author

run buildall

Copy link
Contributor

@sollhui sollhui left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

PR approved by anyone and no changes requested.

@doris-robot
Copy link

TPC-H: Total hot run time: 30356 ms
machine: 'aliyun_ecs.c7a.8xlarge_32C64G'
scripts: https://github.com/apache/doris/tree/master/tools/tpch-tools
Tpch sf100 test result on commit 5828f55133f6d2f060f75e8394a2d72be7c52e5f, data reload: false

------ Round 1 ----------------------------------
q1	17678	4591	4351	4351
q2	2052	391	233	233
q3	10106	1432	731	731
q4	10192	808	308	308
q5	7577	2189	1931	1931
q6	204	178	147	147
q7	897	739	607	607
q8	9272	1426	1133	1133
q9	4809	4630	4625	4625
q10	6847	1929	1556	1556
q11	452	260	225	225
q12	374	375	220	220
q13	17777	4095	3289	3289
q14	230	252	231	231
q15	883	808	807	807
q16	687	701	657	657
q17	708	865	485	485
q18	6747	5978	5789	5789
q19	1744	998	621	621
q20	503	510	379	379
q21	2538	1880	1789	1789
q22	328	287	242	242
Total cold run time: 102605 ms
Total hot run time: 30356 ms

----- Round 2, with runtime_filter_mode=off -----
q1	4466	4382	4401	4382
q2	255	331	276	276
q3	2095	2684	2198	2198
q4	1346	1739	1354	1354
q5	4293	4205	4311	4205
q6	221	179	138	138
q7	1883	1807	1683	1683
q8	2468	2338	2278	2278
q9	6932	6969	6982	6969
q10	2637	2820	2423	2423
q11	487	429	407	407
q12	608	683	559	559
q13	3559	4052	3239	3239
q14	295	290	261	261
q15	832	801	804	801
q16	661	690	635	635
q17	1107	1301	1304	1301
q18	7497	7474	7283	7283
q19	815	818	791	791
q20	1941	2052	1900	1900
q21	4588	4279	4242	4242
q22	558	459	441	441
Total cold run time: 49544 ms
Total hot run time: 47766 ms

@doris-robot
Copy link

ClickBench: Total hot run time: 28.51 s
machine: 'aliyun_ecs.c7a.8xlarge_32C64G'
scripts: https://github.com/apache/doris/tree/master/tools/clickbench-tools
ClickBench test result on commit 5828f55133f6d2f060f75e8394a2d72be7c52e5f, data reload: false

query1	0.06	0.04	0.04
query2	0.10	0.05	0.05
query3	0.25	0.09	0.08
query4	1.61	0.12	0.11
query5	0.26	0.26	0.25
query6	1.17	0.68	0.68
query7	0.03	0.03	0.02
query8	0.04	0.04	0.04
query9	0.56	0.50	0.49
query10	0.55	0.56	0.57
query11	0.15	0.10	0.09
query12	0.13	0.10	0.10
query13	0.63	0.63	0.64
query14	1.08	1.07	1.07
query15	0.88	0.87	0.87
query16	0.39	0.42	0.41
query17	1.14	1.18	1.14
query18	0.23	0.21	0.21
query19	2.05	2.04	2.10
query20	0.02	0.01	0.02
query21	15.46	0.26	0.15
query22	5.20	0.06	0.06
query23	15.93	0.29	0.11
query24	1.43	0.58	0.27
query25	0.09	0.06	0.06
query26	0.14	0.13	0.13
query27	0.07	0.05	0.07
query28	4.60	1.14	0.97
query29	12.57	3.88	3.13
query30	0.28	0.13	0.12
query31	2.81	0.62	0.41
query32	3.25	0.58	0.51
query33	3.22	3.26	3.31
query34	16.39	5.41	4.77
query35	4.86	4.74	4.77
query36	0.65	0.51	0.50
query37	0.11	0.07	0.07
query38	0.08	0.04	0.04
query39	0.04	0.04	0.04
query40	0.18	0.17	0.15
query41	0.09	0.04	0.03
query42	0.04	0.02	0.02
query43	0.04	0.03	0.04
Total cold run time: 98.86 s
Total hot run time: 28.51 s

@hello-stephen
Copy link
Contributor

FE UT Coverage Report

Increment line coverage 0.00% (0/3) 🎉
Increment coverage report
Complete coverage report

@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

PR approved by at least one committer and no changes requested.

@github-actions github-actions bot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by one committer. label Feb 11, 2026
@hello-stephen
Copy link
Contributor

FE Regression Coverage Report

Increment line coverage 100.00% (3/3) 🎉
Increment coverage report
Complete coverage report

@dataroaring dataroaring merged commit 52fa0e7 into apache:master Feb 11, 2026
34 checks passed
github-actions bot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Feb 11, 2026
…ut_value (#60664)

### What problem does this PR solve?

Issue Number: close #xxx

Related PR: #56930
Problem Summary:

Under the condition where `isEof = false`, the calculation of the
timeout in `updateAdaptiveTimeout `also needs to take into account
`Config.routine_load_task_min_timeout_sec`.

### Release note

None

### Check List (For Author)

- Test <!-- At least one of them must be included. -->
    - [ ] Regression test
    - [ ] Unit Test
    - [ ] 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:
    - [ ] No.
    - [ ] Yes. <!-- Explain the behavior change -->

- Does this need documentation?
    - [ ] 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 -->
yiguolei pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Feb 12, 2026
…e_load_timeout_value #60664 (#60692)

Cherry-picked from #60664

Co-authored-by: Refrain <113875799+0AyanamiRei@users.noreply.github.com>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

approved Indicates a PR has been approved by one committer. dev/4.0.4-merged reviewed

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

8 participants