Fix for long running sio__references field #1105
Merged
Conversation
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
dsenalik
approved these changes
Oct 14, 2020
Contributor
dsenalik
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Functionally tested and a massive improvement in page rendering time
Member
Author
|
Since this has been tested by @dsenalik I'm marking as approver 1 reviewed but it needs a code review still. |
laceysanderson
approved these changes
Oct 15, 2020
Member
laceysanderson
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Code review done 👍 Looks good!
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Bug Fix
Issue #1100
Description
This fixes the
sio__referencesfield in the tripal_chado module. The field was taking an extreme amount of time to load when thousands of records were associated with the publication. This is because it was using thechado_generate_varfunction. To fix it, I replaced it with some more efficient SQL code.Testing?
@dsenalik has thoroughly tested this as noted on the issue #1100 but I've asked him to approve it here. I think this now just needs a code review.
But if you want to test, you have to have the following:
To do this testing on a dev site I manually added entries to the
feature_pubtable just to have thousands of records