On Thursday, 7 April 2011, Robert Collins <[email protected]> wrote: > Now, I may be wrong, but I think its worth duplicating message rather > than sharing them between bugs and questions and merge proposals: we > have /very/ few shared messages today (640 bug messages have shared > ids). This doesn't need to mean duplicate model code, but we may need > to do something a little fancy to reuse model code with different db > tables. > > Having a single table with the abillty to answer all three constraints > (bug, message owner, message index) at once would let postgresql do a > bitmap join between the bugtask.bug and bugmessage.bug fields (given > an appropriate index on bugmessage - and then bring in the bug itself > for privacy and product visibility. > > We can move incrementally to this - for instance, we can start with > denormalised trigger-maintained fields on bugmessage, and if we can > get great queries out of that, do the larger shuffle. > > Are there any reasons we /shouldn't/ do this?
For what my it's-nearly-3-am-and-I'm-still-awake-godsdamnit opinion is worth, I can't think of any. I don't think we can realistically consider massive improvements to the bug page - especially in edge cases like bug 1 - without doing something about BugMessage->Message. Incidentally, would such a change help with the problems seen with Bug._indexed_message() (e.g. Bug 744888)? I'm assuming so, but see above under reasons for impaired mental acuity on my part. -- Graham Binns | PGP Key: EC66FA7D http://launchpad.net/~gmb _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
