Absolutely - there will still need to be a human-readable DAG id, even we end up with an auto-icrementing integer ID column internally and for table join performance reasons.
-ash > On 9 Aug 2018, at 12:35, Юли Волкова <xnuins...@gmail.com> wrote: > > How will you understand what your DAG 00002 doing enter to it? For each of > 100, for example? > Especially, if you are not a developer, who create it. You are a support > team and have 120 DAGs. > > The first time, when want to also send the answer to dev-mail list. Please, > don't do it. > > I think it's will be really bad to all who use dag_id like a saying name of > dag. If I will be looked at 0329313 this does not say anything useful for > me and it will be very very complicated to identify for which process dag > using. It could be another id for the indexes in DB if it's real problem > for somebody. But, please, do not change dag_id. > > On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 1:32 AM vardangupta...@gmail.com < > vardangupta...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi Everyone, >> >> Do we have any plan to change type of dag_id from String to Number, this >> will make queries on metadata more performant, proposal could be generating >> an auto-incremental value in dag table and this id getting used in rest of >> the other tables? >> >> >> Regards, >> Vardan Gupta >> > > > -- > _________ > > С уважением, Юлия Волкова > Тел. : +7 (911) 116-71-82
