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

PR - Issue 49850 -ldbm_get_nonleaf_ids() painfully slow for databases with many non-leaf entries #4152

Closed
389-ds-bot opened this issue Sep 13, 2020 · 12 comments
Labels
merged Migration flag - PR pr Migration flag - PR

Comments

@389-ds-bot
Copy link

389-ds-bot commented Sep 13, 2020

Cloned from Pagure Pull-Request: https://pagure.io/389-ds-base/pull-request/51099

  • Created at 2020-05-19 11:42:44 by sgouvern
  • Merged at 2020-05-26 01:10:53

Description:
With a very large database, gathering non-leaf IDs for creating the ancestorid index took an enormous amount of time.
This test is to verify the fix for this problem.

Resolves: #2909

Author: sgouvern

Reviewed by: Firstyear, droideck

@389-ds-bot 389-ds-bot added merged Migration flag - PR pr Migration flag - PR labels Sep 13, 2020
@389-ds-bot
Copy link
Author

Comment from firstyear (@Firstyear) at 2020-05-21 04:11:43

I don't see anything wrong with this test. @vashirov or @droideck ?

@389-ds-bot
Copy link
Author

Comment from spichugi (@droideck) at 2020-05-21 16:21:09

small indentation issue

@389-ds-bot
Copy link
Author

Comment from spichugi (@droideck) at 2020-05-21 16:22:24

I think there is no reason to mention BZ number in the commit message.
It is already mentioned in the pagure issue and as a pytest mark.

@389-ds-bot
Copy link
Author

Comment from spichugi (@droideck) at 2020-05-21 16:22:35

The rest looks good to me.

@389-ds-bot
Copy link
Author

Comment from sgouvern at 2020-05-25 10:56:17

rebased onto bed349d7463150ba7febf62365f70cdcfd44e09f

@389-ds-bot
Copy link
Author

Comment from sgouvern at 2020-05-25 12:00:28

rebased onto 9d5fe06

@389-ds-bot
Copy link
Author

Comment from sgouvern at 2020-05-25 12:09:05

Thanks @Firstyear and @droideck for your review.
I fixed the indentation and commit message issues.
@vashirov, I also changed the pytest marker from skipif to xfail, can you please review ?

@389-ds-bot
Copy link
Author

Comment from spichugi (@droideck) at 2020-05-25 17:11:48

LGTM! Ack

@389-ds-bot
Copy link
Author

Comment from firstyear (@Firstyear) at 2020-05-26 01:10:30

@droideck Worth remembering that not everyone has commit rights, so when you ack sometimes you have to do the merge yourself :)

@389-ds-bot
Copy link
Author

Comment from firstyear (@Firstyear) at 2020-05-26 01:10:53

Pull-Request has been merged by Firstyear

@389-ds-bot
Copy link
Author

Comment from sgouvern at 2020-05-26 09:30:01

Thanks for the go and for the merge :)

@389-ds-bot
Copy link
Author

Patch
51099.patch

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
merged Migration flag - PR pr Migration flag - PR
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant