mmd-osm left a comment (openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website#5619)
> even the question of how much point there is in treating the two
> separately.... but that's another can of worms.
The idea to get rid of current tables in one way or another isn't entirely new.
Back in 2009, the infamous "Rantings about API 0.6" thread saw this comment:
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/dev/2009-February/013962.html:
_As for whether the current tables could be eliminated (or perhaps scaled back
to a pointer record), that is another question entirely. It would complicate
queries somewhat which might have a detrimental impact on performance but
would have advantages in terms of avoiding data duplication and potential
inconsistencies._
Even today, I share the same concerns about performance. Finding the latest
version of an object is fairly cheap today. Without current tables, performance
may be abysmal. Before considering this option, it seems inevitable to run some
serious performance tests on the entire dataset.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website/issues/5619#issuecomment-2661578963
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
<openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website/issues/5619/2661578...@github.com>
_______________________________________________
rails-dev mailing list
rails-dev@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/rails-dev
