Optimize ArchiveField reads
#603
Conversation
CodSpeed Performance ReportMerging #603 will not alter performanceComparing Summary
|
This consists of two optimizations: - It prefers the `archive_field` over the `db_field`, and can thus avoid some queries for the `db_field`, as some queries in API are explicitly `defer`-ing that load. - It also avoids initializing the `ArchiveService.storage_hash`, which we don’t need for reads (only writes), and which would require us to load the related repository and owner.
2ca1330 to
1e42b98
Compare
|
Probably not in our production environment, but I don’t know about self-hosted. So I am rather not touching this. |
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
✅ All tests successful. No failed tests found.
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #603 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 88.60% 88.60% -0.01%
==========================================
Files 463 463
Lines 12776 12773 -3
Branches 1454 1455 +1
==========================================
- Hits 11320 11317 -3
Misses 1151 1151
Partials 305 305
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is ✅ All tests successful. No failed tests found.
📢 Thoughts on this report? Let us know! |
This consists of two optimizations:
archive_fieldover thedb_field, and can thus avoid some queries for thedb_field, as some queries in API are explicitlydefer-ing that load.ArchiveService.storage_hash, which we don’t need for reads (only writes), and which would require us to load the related repository and owner.