[aur-dev] [PATCH] Fix performance issues with new PackageDepends lookups

Lukas Fleischer archlinux at cryptocrack.de
Tue Apr 12 10:29:23 EDT 2011

On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 09:10:13AM -0500, Dan McGee wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 4:36 AM, Lukas Fleischer
> <archlinux at cryptocrack.de> wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 11:23:38AM +0200, Lukas Fleischer wrote:
> >> On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 08:03:43PM -0500, Dan McGee wrote:
> >> > We do a lookup by DepName in the package details view, but I made the
> >> > silly mistake of forgetting this index addition in the upgrade steps.
> >> >
> >> > Signed-off-by: Dan McGee <dan at archlinux.org>
> >> > ---
> >> >
> >> > Lukas- said missing index was the cause of the increased CPU usage/load on
> >> > sigurd, it appears. I already created this index in production as I was the one
> >> > who forgot it in my last set of patches, whoops!
> >>
> >> How serious is this? I didn't check server load recently. If this one
> >> really stresses the server, we should probably put this into another
> >> maintainance release instead of 1.9.0 (although I'm not sure if anyone
> >> will care).
> >
> > Just had a look at the Munin stats for sigurd. Looks like the missing
> > index makes CPU usage go up by an average of 30% which is quite much...
> I wouldn't worry about it unless you really want to spend time
> preparing a release- if you know one site running the AUR code that is
> at even 10% of the capacity of the main site, I'd be surprised. And
> they should be following this list anyway, and could apply the index
> at any time. :)

Yeah. I also noticed that this wouldn't be easy without releasing new
features (e.g. the gettext stuff that I pushed before) at the same time.
We'd have to create a new maintainance branch and cherry-pick or rebase
what is in master right now. On the other side, having separate master
and maintainance branches might be a good thing anyway...

More information about the aur-dev mailing list