Optimize submission keys query #1141
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
matthew-white
approved these changes
May 7, 2024
| AND submission_defs."localKey" IS NOT NULL | ||
| AND submissions.draft = ${draft} | ||
| AND form_defs."formId" = ${formId} | ||
| AND form_defs."keyId" IS NOT NULL |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this condition is already covered by the join between keys and form_defs. If a form def has a NULL keyId, then it won't join with a row from keys.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I agree that while it seems redundant, it makes this query orders of magnitude faster. ~700ms -> 0.1 ms
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Closes getodk/central#658
Query is more readable and much faster, especially in the case where there are no keys to return.
What has been done to verify that this works as intended?
Why is this the best possible solution? Were any other approaches considered?
How does this change affect users? Describe intentional changes to behavior and behavior that could have accidentally been affected by code changes. In other words, what are the regression risks?
Does this change require updates to the API documentation? If so, please update docs/api.yaml as part of this PR.
Before submitting this PR, please make sure you have:
make testand confirmed all checks still pass OR confirm CircleCI build passes