This repository was archived by the owner on Sep 30, 2020. It is now read-only.
Allow self references but exclude them from sampling#2
Open
rthouvenin wants to merge 2 commits into
Open
Conversation
Contributor
|
I think there should still be the possiblity of excluding self-references, or manually excluding certain references - for example the members table (~12 million) references itself in Identity. |
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
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
As far as I understood, the only problem with self-references is that it is hard or even sometimes impossible to sample correctly.
Assuming I did not miss anything, I suggest allowing self-references in the copy but excluding them from sampling. If the table size is acceptable, it's much less work for the user to make the complete export. If the table is too big, it can simply be excluded from the copy and sampled manually, which was already the case anyway.