-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4k
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
feat(trace-explorer): Experiment with sorting by timestamp #73119
feat(trace-explorer): Experiment with sorting by timestamp #73119
Conversation
This is an experiment to try supporting sorting traces by timestamp.
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #73119 +/- ##
===========================================
+ Coverage 56.91% 77.99% +21.07%
===========================================
Files 6611 6626 +15
Lines 295232 295748 +516
Branches 50848 50931 +83
===========================================
+ Hits 168026 230655 +62629
+ Misses 122482 58814 -63668
- Partials 4724 6279 +1555
|
limit=self.limit, | ||
timestamp_column=timestamp_column, | ||
max_execution_seconds=30, | ||
max_parallel_queries=3, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Good call on parallel to speed it up a bit, are we sure this won't spam Snuba and hit rate limits?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
3 x 8 hour queries should stay within the rate limits of snuba but I'll confirm before merging. And I explicitly moved this to a different referrer to help alleviate this concern slightly.
Suspect IssuesThis pull request was deployed and Sentry observed the following issues:
Did you find this useful? React with a 👍 or 👎 |
This is an experiment to try supporting sorting traces by timestamp.