I understand. However, I think that the use case we are looking at is relatively unique. I also think that indexes we need may not be desirable for all the Wiki Replicas (they would often be multi-column indexes geared towards a specific set of queries) and I honestly don't want to go through the several weeks (months?) of discussion to justify them.
Note that if we open the can of "more indexes on Wiki Replicas" worms, this would all of a sudden become an all-wiki discussion. I'm not sure if there are more than a handful wikis that do this level of page-level and user-level analytics as fawiki does, which means for most wikis (and for most Wiki Replica databases) those additional indexes may not even be justified. Even if we were to generalize parts of this approach and bring it to Wiki Replicas, I would still argue that doing it at a smaller extent (one wiki DB for now) would be a reasonable starting point, no? On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 4:42 PM Bryan Davis <bd...@wikimedia.org> wrote: > On Sun, Apr 12, 2020 at 7:48 AM Huji Lee <huji.h...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > One possible solution is to create a script which is scheduled to run > once a month; the script would download the latest dump of the wiki > database,[3] load it into MySQL/MariaDB, create some additional indexes > that would make our desired queries run faster, and generate the reports > using this database. A separate script can then purge the data a few days > later. > > If I am understanding your proposal here, I think the main difference > from the current Wiki Replicas would be "create some additional > indexes that would make our desired queries run faster". We do have > some indexes and views in the Wiki Replicas which are specifically > designed to make common things faster today. If possible, adding to > these rather than building a one-off process of moving lots of data > round for your tool would be nice. > > I say this not because what you are proposing is a ridiculous > solution, but because it is a unique solution for your current problem > that will not help others who are having similar problems. Having 1 > tool use ToolsDB or a custom Cloud VPS project like this is possible, > but having 100 tools try to follow that pattern themselves is not. > > > Out of abundance of caution, I thought I should ask for permission now, > rather than forgiveness later. Do we have a process for getting approval > for projects that require gigabytes of storage and hours of computation, or > is what I proposed not even remotely considered a "large" project, meaning > I am being overly cautious? > > <https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/project/view/2875/> > > Bryan > -- > Bryan Davis Technical Engagement Wikimedia Foundation > Principal Software Engineer Boise, ID USA > [[m:User:BDavis_(WMF)]] irc: bd808 > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia Cloud Services mailing list > Cloud@lists.wikimedia.org (formerly lab...@lists.wikimedia.org) > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia Cloud Services mailing list Cloud@lists.wikimedia.org (formerly lab...@lists.wikimedia.org) https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud
