-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 30
feat/labs migration #1968
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
Open
alanpeixinho
wants to merge
10
commits into
kernelci:main
Choose a base branch
from
profusion:feat/labs-migration
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
feat/labs migration #1968
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
10 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
a4f30bf
feat: Add Lab dimension table
alanpeixinho ec84431
feat: ingester filling labs table and lab_id column
alanpeixinho 3404f84
feat: Change queries to use lab column information
alanpeixinho c1bee99
fixup! feat: Change queries to use lab column information
alanpeixinho 4d99007
fixup! feat: Change queries to use lab column information
alanpeixinho b2452b0
fix: Dead code removal
alanpeixinho 779f8ec
fixup! feat: Change queries to use lab column information
alanpeixinho 9600970
fixup! feat: Change queries to use lab column information
alanpeixinho f2a593a
fixup! feat: Change queries to use lab column information
alanpeixinho c511998
fixup! feat: Change queries to use lab column information
alanpeixinho File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or 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
This file contains hidden or 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
This file contains hidden or 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
This file contains hidden or 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
Oops, something went wrong.
Oops, something went wrong.
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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
If the lab name is unique in the database, why not use that as a primary key? In that case you'd make a first query to check which labs are not in the database yet, a second query to update the table if needed, but you wouldn't need the third query to get the id of the newly added labs
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Mostly to avoid string keys, since this is an internal key, we might benefit more from integer indices.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Makes sense. I am worried that we are adding one query here, one query there and soon we will have a bloat of unnecessary queries in the ingester, but it's fine for now
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It is a valid concern. If we plain to move some operations to ingestion time, we certainly are going to end up increasing "ingestion complexity". But I believe that, as long as we keep the ingester fast enough, simplifying the analysis step should be the goal.