Agreed, let's vote on this.

Cheers,
Lucas

On Fri, Jan 23, 2026 at 3:18 AM Matthias J. Sax <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Thanks for the updates Evan. Sounds good. I did not look at the KIP
> again yet, but I think you can start a VOTE?
>
> -Matthias
>
> On 1/21/26 3:25 PM, Evan Zhou via dev wrote:
> > Hi Matthias,
> >
> > MJS1: I did some more digging, and I see what you were initially asking.
> > I've updated the KIP to specify that a gauge will be used to collect the
> > metric rather than a sensor, which will make the performance impact trivial
> > compared to the initial proposal. I've also changed the recording level to
> > be INFO, matching the behavior of the RocksDB equivalent metric.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Evan
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 16, 2026 at 1:43 PM Evan Zhou <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Matthias,
> >>
> >> MJS1: When trying to figure out how to record this metric, I figured the
> >> simplest and most straightforward way is to update the metric on every put
> >> and delete, which would have a nonzero performance impact, thus I decided
> >> to add it only at the DEBUG level. I'm not sure how RocksDB collects its
> >> equivalent metric, but my understanding is that Kafka Streams just passes
> >> up the value it gets from RocksDB and doesn't do any of the collecting
> >> itself, which is why I believe the in-memory implementation would be more
> >> expensive
> >>
> >> MJS2: Good point, I've updated the KIP to reflect this. To repeat what is
> >> in the KIP, this metric will be implemented for all classes starting with
> >> `Metered` under `streams/state/internals`. For completeness, the metered
> >> iterators are able to remove elements, thus they are included here.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Evan
> >>
> >> On Mon, Jan 12, 2026 at 6:13 PM Matthias J. Sax <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Thanks for the KIP Evan.
> >>>
> >>> MJS1: Why is the metric added at DEBUG level? The corresponding RocksDB
> >>> metric is added at INFO level. The KIP says:
> >>>
> >>>> The addition of this metric will have no effect on existing users. The
> >>> performance impact of adding this metric is non-trivial, thus we only
> >>> record it at the DEBUG level.
> >>>
> >>> Why is it expensive? Not clear to me atm. And why would it be cheaper
> >>> for the RocksDB case?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> About Lucas question: Not sure if we would need to do anything about it?
> >>> Given that we have specific RocksDB metrics, which are not available for
> >>> in-memory stores, why should we not have specific in-memory store
> >>> metrics? RocksDB metrics are also not containing "rocksdb" in their names?
> >>>
> >>> As long as it's properly document as "in-memory metric" (and the
> >>> description already mentions it explicitly) it might just be fine?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> MJS2: The KIP says, we would implement this only for
> >>> `MeteredKeyValueStore`. Why not also add it to the other store types
> >>> like windowed and others?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> -Matthias
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 12/12/25 4:14 PM, Evan Zhou via dev wrote:
> >>>> Hi Lucas,
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks for the feedback.
> >>>>
> >>>> My original intention was to use "estimate" in the metric name as the
> >>>> differentiator, but I agree that this is not very clear. How does
> >>> changing
> >>>> the metric name to "in-memory-state-num-keys" sound?
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>> Evan
> >>>>
> >>>> On Thu, Dec 11, 2025 at 1:21 AM Lucas Brutschy via dev <
> >>> [email protected]>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Hi Evan,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> thanks for the KIP!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If this is specific to in-memory stores, I wonder if we should add
> >>>>> this to the metric name? People could become confused that rocksDB
> >>>>> state is not showing up.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Cheers,
> >>>>> Lucas
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Thu, Dec 11, 2025 at 1:40 AM Evan Zhou via dev <
> >>> [email protected]>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Hi all,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I'd like to start the discussion for KIP-1250, which adds a new
> >>> metric to
> >>>>>> track the size of in-memory state stores. Today, a similar metric
> >>> exists
> >>>>> in
> >>>>>> Kafka, but only for RocksDB, and this KIP intends to close that gap.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/noTMFw
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>> Evan
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >
>

Reply via email to