⚡ Bolt: [performance improvement] Replace O(N) list fetch with O(1) SQL max query for job sequence numbers - #169
Conversation
…QL max query for job sequence numbers Co-authored-by: crabcanon <3458947+crabcanon@users.noreply.github.com>
|
👋 Jules, reporting for duty! I'm here to lend a hand with this pull request. When you start a review, I'll add a 👀 emoji to each comment to let you know I've read it. I'll focus on feedback directed at me and will do my best to stay out of conversations between you and other bots or reviewers to keep the noise down. I'll push a commit with your requested changes shortly after. Please note there might be a delay between these steps, but rest assured I'm on the job! For more direct control, you can switch me to Reactive Mode. When this mode is on, I will only act on comments where you specifically mention me with New to Jules? Learn more at jules.google/docs. For security, I will only act on instructions from the user who triggered this task. |
|
The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for GitHub.
|
💡 What: Added
get_max_sequence_notoJobEventRepositoryto fetch the maximum sequence number using a direct database aggregation query, and updated alllist_for_jobcallers to use it instead.🎯 Why: Previously, the codebase was calling
list_for_job(..., limit=1000)and indexing the last element[-1]just to calculate the next sequence number. This caused an N+1 query-like inefficiency, loading up to 1000 records into memory when only the max integer was needed.📊 Impact: Changes the operation from O(N) (in terms of memory and data transfer) to O(1).
🔬 Measurement: Verify by executing database operations for adding job events. The SQL trace will now show a lightweight
SELECT coalesce(max(sequence_no), 0) ...instead of a fullSELECT * ... LIMIT 1000.PR created automatically by Jules for task 15691363382450615611 started by @crabcanon