Skip to content

fix(planner): bump rqe-optimizer to S8 and split Sum/Count/TopK capabilities - #801

Merged
milindsrivastava1997 merged 2 commits into
mainfrom
790-bump-rqe-optimizer-s8
Oct 7, 2026
Merged

milindsrivastava1997 merged 2 commits into
mainfrom
790-bump-rqe-optimizer-s8

Conversation

@milindsrivastava1997

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Part of #790 (session 3a). This is the step before A3: it moves the planner to sketch-bench S8 and to the new capability split.

What

Interface for A3 / 4a

Test plan

  • 3 new tests:
    • Count, TopKByValue and TopKByCount capability mapping.
    • Unknown topk weighting is an error.
    • avg's sum and count Raqes solve to two deployments.
  • Existing solve tests now use the S8 fields.
  • cargo test -p asap_planner, clippy with -D warnings, fmt; pre-commit ran workspace check, clippy and test.
  • CLI smoke run on sketch-bench/out_10_6_26_1342/rqe_atomic_costs.json, scrape interval 15s:
    • Sum and Count get separate exact-sum deployments.
    • TopKByValue and TopKByCount get separate CMS heaps.
    • Retained counts and n print, e.g. max_over_time[1h] → x=240s, y=60s, retained=61, n=15.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

milindsrivastava1997 and others added 2 commits October 7, 2026 09:58
…ilities

sketch-bench split SumOrCount into Sum and Count and TopK into TopKByValue
and TopKByCount, so the two halves of an avg rewrite, and value- vs
count-ranked top-k, no longer share one deployment. A topk with unknown
weighting is now an error.

solve_milp returns S8's MilpSolution (active deployments with retained
count, per-Raqe deployment and merged count); the CLI prints both.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
- The unservable pre-check calls rqe_optimizer::enumerate::unservable
  instead of re-implementing it, and checks one Raqe per item, since an
  item's occurrences are identical.
- TopkWeightingUnknown no longer implies a bare topk is invalid.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant