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

Eliminate storage of non-dirty settings #42

Closed
westonruter opened this issue Jun 9, 2016 · 6 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
2 participants
@westonruter
Copy link
Contributor

commented Jun 9, 2016

I think I know why I was having environment problems yesterday. I think it was because I had so many settings loaded into the Customizer (278) and many of the settings were large being post settings with potentially very large post_content. I just looked at a snapshot I made and I calculated its size at 76,170 bytes (via wp post get 305 --field=post_content | wc -c). This is large. The post_content field is a LONGTEXT in MySQL which means it can store a snapshot post_content that is 56,386 times larger. Nevertheless, this is a ton of data to be passing back and forth with each snapshot update, and it could get is into trouble with timeouts and network latency.

I think we should perhaps remove the full scope from being a feature for the sake of scalability. With the UX changes in #30 it's not even an option anymore in the UI, and I think that it has always been a bit dubious in its usefulness. Thoughts?

@valendesigns

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Jun 9, 2016

I think that would be sane, and I'm all for it.

@westonruter

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

commented Jun 11, 2016

@valendesigns is this something you had a branch for which you want to include in 0.4.0?

@valendesigns

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Jun 11, 2016

@westonruter

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

commented Jun 11, 2016

I've some followup in #46.

@valendesigns

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Jun 11, 2016

I've not tested it but that change looks like it's reverting things. Wouldn't it now add all the settings again, regardless of if their dirty?

@westonruter

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

commented Jun 11, 2016

@valendesigns oh, possibly. I assumed that the JS wasn't sending the non-dirty settings in the request, but maybe this wasn't done?

@westonruter westonruter added this to the 0.4.0 milestone Jun 12, 2016

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
You can’t perform that action at this time.