-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 9
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
ORM Query Reviews #309
Comments
Hello @thebeanogamer. Do you have some further information on what "interesting" queries you mean? |
1 similar comment
Hello @thebeanogamer. Do you have some further information on what "interesting" queries you mean? |
We spent quite a while convincing the ORM to not be slow, but this was done
on Django 3.x, I had a quick look at the queries on Django 4.x and they
were quite different, previously there were a lot of joins whereas now we
have a lot of queries that are doing large `WHERE id IN (1,2,3,4,5,...)`
filters which feel like it might be doing joins in python.
The main thing would be checking performance hasn't regressed, I don't
really care what the ORM does as long as it's fast, but given how long we
spent convincing it to do the right thing, now that it's generating
different SQL, it's worth checking it's not got worse.
…On Fri, Jul 28, 2023, 22:09 jchristgit ***@***.***> wrote:
Hello @thebeanogamer <https://github.com/thebeanogamer>. Do you have some
further information on what "interesting" queries you mean?
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#309 (comment)>, or
unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACBCZQ5GP37X4GLQU2NT6NLXSQTAXANCNFSM6AAAAAAXQJIOEI>
.
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message
ID: ***@***.***>
|
Hi Ada, thanks for the info.
I assume the best place to look for problematic queries would be when we
are running another event and can monitor the logs on the production
workload?
|
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Django's ORM is producing some interesting queries. We should review these and replace them where appropriate.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: