Skip to content

[branch-53] Cherry pick Improve ergonomics for ExecutionPlanMetricsSet and MetricsSet (#21762)#109

Merged
gabotechs merged 1 commit intobranch-53from
branch-53-cherry-pick-8
Apr 22, 2026
Merged

[branch-53] Cherry pick Improve ergonomics for ExecutionPlanMetricsSet and MetricsSet (#21762)#109
gabotechs merged 1 commit intobranch-53from
branch-53-cherry-pick-8

Conversation

@gabotechs
Copy link
Copy Markdown

Cherry picks apache#21762

…#21762)

## Which issue does this PR close?

<!--
We generally require a GitHub issue to be filed for all bug fixes and
enhancements and this helps us generate change logs for our releases.
You can link an issue to this PR using the GitHub syntax. For example
`Closes apache#123` indicates that this PR will close issue apache#123.
-->

- None

## Rationale for this change

<!--
Why are you proposing this change? If this is already explained clearly
in the issue then this section is not needed.
Explaining clearly why changes are proposed helps reviewers understand
your changes and offer better suggestions for fixes.
-->

Sometimes, when an `ExecutionPlan` implementation is complex, different
metrics are collected from different structs that compose the whole
execution plan.

These metrics need to eventually be served from the single entrypoint
`ExecutionPlan::metrics()` or `DataSource::metrics()`, and the current
api does not have good methods for merging several
`ExecutionPlanMetricsSet` coming from different sources into a single
one.

## What changes are included in this PR?

<!--
There is no need to duplicate the description in the issue here but it
is sometimes worth providing a summary of the individual changes in this
PR.
-->

Add some basic conversion and iteration methods for `MetricsSet` and
`ExecutionPlanMetricsSet`, in order to improve ergonomics around these
structs.

## Are these changes tested?

<!--
We typically require tests for all PRs in order to:
1. Prevent the code from being accidentally broken by subsequent changes
2. Serve as another way to document the expected behavior of the code

If tests are not included in your PR, please explain why (for example,
are they covered by existing tests)?
-->

This is purely just basic std trait implementations and method exposure,
so as long as the code compiles, I don't think it needs further tests.

## Are there any user-facing changes?

People will see some more available methods in the `MetricsSet` and
`ExecutionPlanMetricsSet` structs for ergonomics.

<!--
If there are user-facing changes then we may require documentation to be
updated before approving the PR.
-->

<!--
If there are any breaking changes to public APIs, please add the `api
change` label.
-->

(cherry picked from commit ff844be)
@gabotechs gabotechs merged commit a4a3923 into branch-53 Apr 22, 2026
63 of 64 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants