hgromer commented on code in PR #6623: URL: https://github.com/apache/hbase/pull/6623#discussion_r2014830647
########## hbase-client/src/main/java/org/apache/hadoop/hbase/client/QueryMetrics.java: ########## @@ -0,0 +1,33 @@ +/* + * Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one + * or more contributor license agreements. See the NOTICE file + * distributed with this work for additional information + * regarding copyright ownership. The ASF licenses this file + * to you under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the + * "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance + * with the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at + * + * http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 + * + * Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software + * distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS, + * WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied. + * See the License for the specific language governing permissions and + * limitations under the License. + */ +package org.apache.hadoop.hbase.client; + +import org.apache.yetus.audience.InterfaceAudience; + [email protected] +public class QueryMetrics { Review Comment: > Why not use the existing ServerSideMetric class? It has loose typing for metrics via a map and protobuf logic is already there. I'm hesitant to do this. What's the value in obfuscating the actual metrics themselves by using a generic map when we can efficiently and more clearly represent whichever fields are being served to the user? In my opinion, this is also less error-prone, as the fields are clearly stated, and it's harder to remove or modify something unintentionally. I talked a little bit about why I opted for creating a new class, rather than re-using an existing one [here](https://github.com/apache/hbase/pull/6623#issuecomment-2651341232). I worry about coupling the new metrics and Scans with this shared metrics class which could make it hard to iterate in the future. > Thus, we have a proposal to maintain the per region metrics along with capturing region name and RS where the region lies It makes sense to re-use the ScanMetrics for more granular scan metrics, but I think it makes sense to create a new metric type for metrics that will back both Get(s) and Scans. Additionally, the granularity is so course, that we'll be adding bloat to the metric by requiring fields, such as `countOfRegions` which wouldn't apply to this new type of metric I'm proposing. -- 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]
