docs/29 - 카탈로그 최종 부하테스트 - #47
Conversation
|
Warning Rate limit exceeded
You’ve run out of usage credits. Purchase more in the billing tab. ⌛ How to resolve this issue?After the wait time has elapsed, a review can be triggered using the We recommend that you space out your commits to avoid hitting the rate limit. 🚦 How do rate limits work?CodeRabbit enforces hourly rate limits for each developer per organization. Our paid plans have higher rate limits than the trial, open-source and free plans. In all cases, we re-allow further reviews after a brief timeout. Please see our FAQ for further information. ℹ️ Review info⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: Organization UI Review profile: CHILL Plan: Pro Plus Run ID: 📒 Files selected for processing (1)
📝 WalkthroughWalkthrough카탈로그 서비스의 Redis Cache-Aside 도입 후 2차 부하테스트 결과를 정리한 성능 리포트 문서입니다. Full Cache Hit 시 993.0 TPS, 25.8ms 지연시간, 0.0% 에러율을 기록했으며, Kafka 이벤트 기반 캐시 무효화로 정합성을 확보한 설계 내용을 포함합니다. ChangesRedis 캐시 성능 리포트 문서화
🎯 1 (Trivial) | ⏱️ ~5분 Possibly related PRs
Suggested reviewers
Poem
🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5✅ Passed checks (5 passed)
✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings. ✨ Finishing Touches🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. Comment |
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 3
🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
Inline comments:
In `@docs/performance/Catalog_TO-BE_2.0_Redis_Cache_Performance_Report.md`:
- Line 12: The heading text "부하테스트 타격 결과" is awkward—replace it with a more
natural phrase such as "부하테스트 결과" or "부하 테스트 측정 결과" wherever that exact string
appears (the heading line containing "부하테스트 타격 결과") to improve readability and
consistency in the document.
- Around line 24-27: Update the "2차 타격 결과 (Warm Cache / Full Hit) - 최종 지표"
section so it clearly states whether the ≤10ms latency target was met:
explicitly note that the reported 평균 지연 시간 25.8 ms exceeds the ≤10 ms goal, mark
the goal as unmet, and add a brief remediation/next-steps sentence (e.g.,
investigate cache hit amplification, tune Redis settings, or schedule follow-up
testing). Make the same change for the analogous block referenced at lines
40-47; refer to the heading "2차 타격 결과 (Warm Cache / Full Hit) - 최종 지표" and the
metric entries "평균 지연 시간(Average): 25.8 ms" and throughput/min-max values so the
reviewer can locate and update the text.
- Around line 56-60: Replace the absolute claim "100%의 데이터 정합성" with a qualified
statement or add measurement evidence: update the sentence referencing the
Kafka-driven cache invalidation flow (mentions `product.updated`,
`product.status-changed`, and `@CacheEvict`) so it either says the architecture
"significantly reduces stale-data risk" or "achieves near-100% consistency under
measured conditions" and, if possible, append the supporting verification
details (reproduction case, observed miss-rate, test duration) after the claim;
ensure references to `product.updated`, `product.status-changed`, and
`@CacheEvict` remain to show the invalidation mechanism.
🪄 Autofix (Beta)
Fix all unresolved CodeRabbit comments on this PR:
- Push a commit to this branch (recommended)
- Create a new PR with the fixes
ℹ️ Review info
⚙️ Run configuration
Configuration used: Organization UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro Plus
Run ID: 0457a205-774b-42c0-9540-a144fe77b402
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
docs/performance/Catalog_TO-BE_2.0_Redis_Cache_Performance_Report.md
| - **2차 타격 결과 (Warm Cache / Full Hit) - 최종 지표:** | ||
| - **처리량(Throughput):** `993.0 / sec` **(AS-IS 대비 약 646% 성능 향상)** | ||
| - **평균 지연 시간(Average):** `25.8 ms` **(AS-IS 대비 약 95% 지연 시간 단축)** | ||
| - **최소 / 최대 지연 시간:** `1 ms` / `170 ms` |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
목표 지연시간 달성 여부를 명시해 주세요.
Line 26 기준 평균 25.8ms는 링크된 목표(≤10ms)와 불일치합니다. 현재 표/결론은 “전면 달성”처럼 읽혀서, 목표 미달 항목과 후속 계획을 함께 명시하는 게 필요합니다.
제안 문구(예시)
- - **평균 지연 시간(Average):** `25.8 ms` **(AS-IS 대비 약 95% 지연 시간 단축)**
+ - **평균 지연 시간(Average):** `25.8 ms` **(AS-IS 대비 약 95% 지연 시간 단축)**
+ - ⚠️ **목표 대비 상태:** 이슈 목표(≤ 10ms)에는 아직 미달이며, 추가 최적화(직렬화 비용/네트워크 홉/키 설계 튜닝)가 필요-| **Average Time** | 539 ms | **25.8 ms** | **`- 95.2% 단축`** |
+| **Average Time** | 539 ms | **25.8 ms** | **`- 95.2% 단축 (목표 ≤10ms 미달)`** |Also applies to: 40-47
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
In `@docs/performance/Catalog_TO-BE_2.0_Redis_Cache_Performance_Report.md` around
lines 24 - 27, Update the "2차 타격 결과 (Warm Cache / Full Hit) - 최종 지표" section so
it clearly states whether the ≤10ms latency target was met: explicitly note that
the reported 평균 지연 시간 25.8 ms exceeds the ≤10 ms goal, mark the goal as unmet,
and add a brief remediation/next-steps sentence (e.g., investigate cache hit
amplification, tune Redis settings, or schedule follow-up testing). Make the
same change for the analogous block referenced at lines 40-47; refer to the
heading "2차 타격 결과 (Warm Cache / Full Hit) - 최종 지표" and the metric entries "평균 지연
시간(Average): 25.8 ms" and throughput/min-max values so the reviewer can locate
and update the text.
2 participants
📝 작업 내용
🚀 주요 변경 사항
✅ 자체 체크리스트 (필수)
./gradlew build실행 결과 정상 (인증샷 첨부)📸 테스트 인증샷
💬 리뷰어 전달사항 (선택)
📎 참고 자료
Summary by CodeRabbit
릴리스 노트