Fæ wrote: >Re: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Faebot/thanks > >I am glad the tables are useful, hopefully stimulating more positive >use of the thanks notifier by contributors. > >The reports are updating *slowly*, currently at April 2014... This is >in part because of the WMFlabs outage yesterday, though in general any >report of the "logging" table is going to be slow (it is the largest >table on the wiki database). The first run-through will take several >days as it is going back through all of 2014. Once it is only >reporting on the previous month, I suspect it will finish monthly >updates within the first first day.
Hi. Hmm, I'm not sure how you're measuring largest, but I imagine on most wikis there are more rows in the revision table than there are in the logging table. For example, on the English Wikipedia, there are approximately 598,859,006 rows in the revision table and 62,731,285 rows in the logging table. I suspect on most wikis, revision, text, and maybe archive would typically be larger than logging, except in weird cases such as loginwiki[_p]. And then of course there are the *links tables. But it depends on whether you're comparing size on disk or number of rows. You probably want to use logging_userindex instead of logging. The former is typically significantly faster due to the way we use table views. I have a bit of experience with database reports. Off-hand I'd say it should be possible to query all of this information in under an hour. With the index on logging[_userindex].log_action, even a large table such as logging shouldn't be too awful to query for this information. If you have queries that are taking a very long time, we should probably investigate. MZMcBride _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
