Github user mccheah commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/21221#discussion_r207004997
--- Diff:
core/src/main/scala/org/apache/spark/executor/ExecutorMetrics.scala ---
@@ -0,0 +1,81 @@
+/*
+ * 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.spark.executor
+
+import org.apache.spark.annotation.DeveloperApi
+import org.apache.spark.metrics.ExecutorMetricType
+
+/**
+ * :: DeveloperApi ::
+ * Metrics tracked for executors and the driver.
+ *
+ * Executor-level metrics are sent from each executor to the driver as
part of the Heartbeat.
+ */
+@DeveloperApi
+class ExecutorMetrics private[spark] extends Serializable {
+
+ // Metrics are indexed by MetricGetter.values
+ private val metrics = new Array[Long](ExecutorMetricType.values.length)
--- End diff --
Yup that's fine - I did some googling, unfortunately there isn't a great
way to iterate over fields of a case class. You could create a thin wrapper
object around the array instead though, if we really think the nicer API is
worthwhile:
```
case class Metrics(values: Seq[Long]) {
def someMetric1(): Long = values(0)
def ....
def ...
}
```
Or even this:
```
case class Metrics(metric1: Long, metric2: Long, metfic3: Long, ...) {
def values(): Seq[Long] = Seq(metric1, metric2, metric3, ...)
}
```
The latter which would be better because you'd be guaranteed to create the
struct with the right number of metrics. Though such abstractions are not
necessary by any means.
---
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
