Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

reorganize updateInputFilesStagedAboutIdds_JEDI #284

Open
wants to merge 4 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

wguanicedew
Copy link

reorganize updateInputFilesStagedAboutIdds_JEDI to use 'fileid in ()', instead of using executeMany.

@mightqxc mightqxc requested a review from tmaeno November 12, 2024 15:12
Copy link
Contributor

@tmaeno tmaeno left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

A couple of questions.

  • Does "fileid in ()" parform better than executemany?
  • I suppose each execution statement with a differnt number of fileids is regarded as unique. Aren't the parsed statement and its execution plan cached, which may increase memory usage on Oracle?
  • Wen said idds currently limits the max number of files to 1000 in each message but he still saw the issue. 1000 of executemany is not significant, so I guess the issue is caused by something else than the executemany size. Do you think we really need this change?

@wguanicedew
Copy link
Author

Another way, we can remove the fileid and scope in the sql when fileid is there. Since it's an 'and' operation between fileid and lfn, all items are executed. when lfn is long, it's not efficient. However, when asking chatgpt, it seems 'fileid in ()' is more efficient than executing multiple updates.

@mightqxc
Copy link
Contributor

mightqxc commented Nov 13, 2024

Another way, we can remove the fileid and scope in the sql when fileid is there.

I made that change in https://github.com/PanDAWMS/panda-jedi/pull/283/files
No LFN and scope when fileID exists

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.

3 participants