Remove usage of the report_builder
#710
Merged
Conversation
This file contains 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
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
✅ All tests successful. No failed tests found. Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #710 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 98.08% 98.07% -0.02%
==========================================
Files 432 432
Lines 36292 36066 -226
==========================================
- Hits 35598 35370 -228
- Misses 694 696 +2
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
|
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅ ✅ All tests successful. No failed tests found. @@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #710 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 98.08% 98.07% -0.02%
==========================================
Files 432 432
Lines 36292 36066 -226
==========================================
- Hits 35598 35370 -228
- Misses 694 696 +2
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
|
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
✅ All tests successful. No failed tests found. @@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #710 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 98.08% 98.07% -0.02%
==========================================
Files 432 432
Lines 36292 36066 -226
==========================================
- Hits 35598 35370 -228
- Misses 694 696 +2
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
|
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
✅ All tests successful. No failed tests found. @@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #710 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 98.08% 98.07% -0.02%
==========================================
Files 432 432
Lines 36292 36066 -226
==========================================
- Hits 35598 35370 -228
- Misses 694 696 +2
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
|
Swatinem
force-pushed
the
swatinem/rm-reportbuilder
branch
from
6d7ca86
to
e3b4416
Compare
I think the intention of the `report_builder` setting was to build a `Report` from various database tables, instead of from the `report_json` blob. However, it is unclear if that is actually faster, as some of the involved tables are slow to query, and the `files_array` field was doing a storage request anyway. So the code was still doing two storage requests (`chunks` and `files_array`) plus various SELECTs, instead of doing just two storage requests (`report_json` and `chunks`).
Swatinem
force-pushed
the
swatinem/rm-reportbuilder
branch
from
e3b4416
to
25af637
Compare
giovanni-guidini
approved these changes
Oct 1, 2024
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
I think the intention of the
report_buildersetting was to build aReportfrom various database tables, instead of from thereport_jsonblob.However, it is unclear if that is actually faster, as some of the involved tables are slow to query, and the
files_arrayfield was doing a storage request anyway.So the code was still doing two storage requests (
chunksandfiles_array) plus various SELECTs, instead of doing just two storage requests (report_jsonandchunks).