Smalyshev added a comment. **This changes the structure, and the original structure is no longer represented and can no longer be faithfully recovered.**
This is not correct, original structure can be recovered, though I see no reason why would you want to do so. Can you name one? **a mere 40 qualifiers (20 properties, each with two values) on one forged statement, I could create a million statements in your index -- a possible DOS attack vector** Scan of the database shows there are no entries generating more than 15 qualifier splits (at least I couldn't find any a month ago). If it ever becomes a problem, we could easily institute limits, but I think vandalism is better handled on other levels than changing our data model to avoid vandals. I see no case where 20 duplicate qualifiers would legitimately be required - duplicate qualifier is usually a wrong way to represent the claim, since it essentially claims that the same event happened in two places, two times, etc. - which usually means what should there be is two separate claims, as event happening two times is two different instances of the event. So I would claim even most existing duplicates look like data errors. TASK DETAIL https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T86278 REPLY HANDLER ACTIONS Reply to comment or attach files, or !close, !claim, !unsubscribe or !assign <username>. EMAIL PREFERENCES https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/ To: Smalyshev Cc: Aklapper, Smalyshev, Lydia_Pintscher, Multichill, Magnus, daniel, JeroenDeDauw, JanZerebecki, aude, mkroetzsch, Denny, Sjoerddebruin, Tobi_WMDE_SW, jkroll, Wikidata-bugs, GWicke, Manybubbles _______________________________________________ Wikidata-bugs mailing list Wikidata-bugs@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-bugs
