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

mysql_info: change order of collecting and filtering items #63319

Closed
the02 opened this issue Oct 10, 2019 · 12 comments · Fixed by #63371
Closed

mysql_info: change order of collecting and filtering items #63319

the02 opened this issue Oct 10, 2019 · 12 comments · Fixed by #63371
Labels
affects_2.10 This issue/PR affects Ansible v2.10 database Database category feature This issue/PR relates to a feature request. has_pr This issue has an associated PR. module This issue/PR relates to a module. mysql support:community This issue/PR relates to code supported by the Ansible community.

Comments

@the02
Copy link

the02 commented Oct 10, 2019

SUMMARY

collect data based on the filters

ISSUE TYPE
  • Feature Idea
COMPONENT NAME

mysql_info

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

On large databases mysql_info runs very long due to size calculations of all db/tables even when this information is not needed (for example quering user information only)

@ansibot
Copy link
Contributor

ansibot commented Oct 10, 2019

Files identified in the description:

If these files are inaccurate, please update the component name section of the description or use the !component bot command.

click here for bot help

@ansibot ansibot added affects_2.10 This issue/PR affects Ansible v2.10 database Database category feature This issue/PR relates to a feature request. module This issue/PR relates to a module. mysql needs_triage Needs a first human triage before being processed. support:community This issue/PR relates to code supported by the Ansible community. labels Oct 10, 2019
@Andersson007
Copy link
Contributor

@the02 hello, thank you for the feedback.
I suggest adding a flag, e.g. db_size: yes | no
What, guys, do you think? Any other ideas?
@bmalynovytch

@ansibot ansibot removed the needs_triage Needs a first human triage before being processed. label Oct 10, 2019
@bmalynovytch
Copy link
Contributor

Maybe something more general like included_fields with a default to ALL, which would allow to filter out some fields.

@Andersson007
Copy link
Contributor

Andersson007 commented Oct 10, 2019

What if we need all fields except db sizes? i agree, it can be annoying to wait for one field.
In general sounds good. Maybe exclude_fields?

@Andersson007
Copy link
Contributor

Or maybe both? And we could make them mutually exclusive

@Andersson007
Copy link
Contributor

Ok, i got the hint :) will try to implement one of them tomorrow. Then the another one If success

@Andersson007
Copy link
Contributor

resolved_by_pr: #63371

@ansibot ansibot added the has_pr This issue has an associated PR. label Oct 11, 2019
@the02
Copy link
Author

the02 commented Oct 11, 2019

sorry for the late reply, has been a very busy day yesterday.
Maybe I would have solved it without an extra key, but this solution is also a good idea, maybe better than using ! for exclusion

@Andersson007
Copy link
Contributor

@tHe2 thank you for reporting this!
would be cool if you look at the PR and, if it is ok for you, add a comment with:
shipit
or any suggestions

@the02
Copy link
Author

the02 commented Oct 15, 2019

@Andersson007 will take a look at it tonight how it performs on large databases.

@Andersson007
Copy link
Contributor

@the02 thank you! Would be really good

@ansible ansible locked and limited conversation to collaborators Jan 2, 2020
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
affects_2.10 This issue/PR affects Ansible v2.10 database Database category feature This issue/PR relates to a feature request. has_pr This issue has an associated PR. module This issue/PR relates to a module. mysql support:community This issue/PR relates to code supported by the Ansible community.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

4 participants