Improving actor write performance by skipping runtime "exists" checks on state writes - #1914
Merged
Merged
Conversation
… upsert) in the actor state. This means that when a delete happens, the delete is always sent to the runtime even if the key has never existed there (e.g. added to state and then removed before the actor turn completes). In all other respects, caching operates the same but without the check to see if the key already exists in the runtime when setting the value. Signed-off-by: Whit Waldo <whit.waldo@innovian.net>
Codecov Report✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests. Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #1914 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 64.19% 64.25% +0.05%
==========================================
Files 358 358
Lines 10508 10506 -2
Branches 1258 1256 -2
==========================================
+ Hits 6746 6751 +5
+ Misses 3426 3422 -4
+ Partials 336 333 -3
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
Signed-off-by: Whit Waldo <whit.waldo@innovian.net>
2 of 3 tasks
CasperGN
added a commit
to CasperGN/python-sdk
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 25, 2026
set_state and set_state_ttl read the state store for a key that was not in the tracker only to choose between add and update, but the state provider saves both as the same upsert. The key is now recorded as an update without that read. Update rather than add is deliberate: the key may already exist in the store, so a remove later in the same turn has to send a delete instead of dropping the pending entry. Deleting a key that turns out not to exist is harmless; skipping the delete of one that does is not. Keys the manager knows are absent keep the add kind, so add-then-remove still sends nothing: try_add_state still reads the store and fails when the key exists, and a cached "not found" entry still turns into an add. try_remove_state still reads the store to report whether anything was removed. A reentrant save refreshes the default tracker the same way whatever kind the saved change had. Ports dapr/dotnet-sdk#1914. Signed-off-by: Casper Nielsen <casper@diagrid.io> Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
This was referenced Sep 27, 2026
This was referenced Oct 4, 2026
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Description
Setting a value for a key always sets it as an update (effectively an upsert) in the actor state. This means that when a delete happens, the delete is always sent to the runtime even if the key has never existed there (e.g. added to state and then removed before the actor turn completes). In all other respects, caching operates the same but without the check to see if the key already exists in the runtime when setting the value.
I added ample tests to validate that this does not negatively impact the current implementation and expectations.
Great find @olitomlinson !
Issue reference
We strive to have all PR being opened based on an issue, where the problem or feature have been discussed prior to implementation.
Please reference the issue this PR will close: #1910
Checklist
Please make sure you've completed the relevant tasks for this PR, out of the following list: