Conversation
bennybp
force-pushed
the
spec_hash
branch
4 times, most recently
from
December 20, 2024 17:52
0947582 to
b019b9b
Compare
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 join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Description
This PR improves how specifications are added (and duplicate specifications are detected) for all record types except Manybody (which is going to be dramatically changed in the future).
Now, hashing of the entire specification (although not sub-specifications) is used. This should increase performance, especially for QC/Singlepoint specifications. There is also the option to add many specifications as a batch instead.
This is part of a foundation of increasing the performance of returning completed records from a manager (and ingestion of external records in the future).
This also improves and expands the tests for adding specifications for the different record types as well.
There is a required database migration, however this change is completely server-side and not API breaking
Status