FANNG1 commented on code in PR #8980:
URL: https://github.com/apache/gravitino/pull/8980#discussion_r2601583335
##########
iceberg/iceberg-common/src/main/java/org/apache/gravitino/iceberg/common/IcebergConfig.java:
##########
@@ -283,6 +283,36 @@ public class IcebergConfig extends Config implements
OverwriteDefaultConfig {
.intConf()
.createWithDefault(60);
+ public static final ConfigEntry<String> SCAN_PLAN_CACHE_IMPL =
+ new ConfigBuilder(IcebergConstants.SCAN_PLAN_CACHE_IMPL)
+ .doc(
+ "The implementation of the scan plan cache. Gravitino provides a
built-in "
+ + "LocalScanPlanCache that stores cached data in memory. If
not specified, "
+ + "LocalScanPlanCache will be used by default. You can
implement a custom scan plan "
+ + "cache by implementing the ScanPlanCache interface.")
+ .version(ConfigConstants.VERSION_1_1_0)
+ .stringConf()
+ .create();
+
+ public static final ConfigEntry<Integer> SCAN_PLAN_CACHE_CAPACITY =
+ new ConfigBuilder(IcebergConstants.SCAN_PLAN_CACHE_CAPACITY)
+ .doc(
+ "Maximum number of scan plan results to cache. Larger values
allow more queries to benefit "
+ + "from caching but use more memory. Each cached entry
stores the complete scan plan response, "
+ + "which can be large for tables with many files. A typical
scan plan might be several KB to MB "
+ + "depending on table size.")
+ .version(ConfigConstants.VERSION_1_1_0)
Review Comment:
How about using `.checkValue(value -> value > 0,
ConfigConstants.POSITIVE_NUMBER_ERROR_MSG)
` to simplify the validation check in the following code?
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]
