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

Minor performance improvement when invalidating archives #15879

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Apr 30, 2020

Conversation

tsteur
Copy link
Member

@tsteur tsteur commented Apr 29, 2020

Just debugging some memory issues around archiving and noticed here it returned in one case over 300K rows. When adding the count > 1 it returned only 1000 rows. This should make it a lot faster and consume bit less memory etc. It's only a minor tweak though.

Just debugging some memory issues around archiving and noticed here it returned in one case over 300K rows. When adding the count > 1 it returned only 1000 rows. This should make it a lot faster and consume bit less memory etc. It's only a minor tweak though.
@tsteur tsteur added the Needs Review PRs that need a code review label Apr 29, 2020
@tsteur tsteur added this to the 3.13.6 milestone Apr 29, 2020
@diosmosis diosmosis merged commit 3833d95 into 3.x-dev Apr 30, 2020
@diosmosis diosmosis deleted the invalarchiperformance branch April 30, 2020 14:18
jonasgrilleres pushed a commit to 1024pix/pix-analytics that referenced this pull request Sep 22, 2020
…15879)

Just debugging some memory issues around archiving and noticed here it returned in one case over 300K rows. When adding the count > 1 it returned only 1000 rows. This should make it a lot faster and consume bit less memory etc. It's only a minor tweak though.
jbuget pushed a commit to 1024pix/pix-analytics that referenced this pull request Sep 26, 2020
…15879)

Just debugging some memory issues around archiving and noticed here it returned in one case over 300K rows. When adding the count > 1 it returned only 1000 rows. This should make it a lot faster and consume bit less memory etc. It's only a minor tweak though.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Needs Review PRs that need a code review
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants