[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AIRFLOW-2319?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16737250#comment-16737250
]
Alpesh commented on AIRFLOW-2319:
---------------------------------
Instead of removing unique constraint, would it be better to stop truncating
microseconds from execution date?
> Table "dag_run" has (bad) second index on (dag_id, execution_date)
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: AIRFLOW-2319
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AIRFLOW-2319
> Project: Apache Airflow
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: DagRun
> Affects Versions: 1.9.0
> Reporter: Andreas Költringer
> Priority: Major
>
> Inserting DagRun's via {{airflow.api.common.experimental.trigger_dag}}
> (multiple rows with the same {{(dag_id, execution_date)}}) raised the
> following error:
> {code:java}
> {models.py:1644} ERROR - No row was found for one(){code}
> This is weird as the {{session.add()}} and {{session.commit()}} is right
> before {{run.refresh_from_db()}} in {{models.DAG.create_dagrun()}}.
> Manually inspecting the database revealed that there is an extra index with
> {{unique}} constraint on the columns {{(dag_id, execution_date)}}:
> {code:java}
> sqlite> .schema dag_run
> CREATE TABLE dag_run (
> id INTEGER NOT NULL,
> dag_id VARCHAR(250),
> execution_date DATETIME,
> state VARCHAR(50),
> run_id VARCHAR(250),
> external_trigger BOOLEAN, conf BLOB, end_date DATETIME, start_date
> DATETIME,
> PRIMARY KEY (id),
> UNIQUE (dag_id, execution_date),
> UNIQUE (dag_id, run_id),
> CHECK (external_trigger IN (0, 1))
> );
> CREATE INDEX dag_id_state ON dag_run (dag_id, state);{code}
> (On SQLite its a unique constraint, on MariaDB its also an index)
> The {{DagRun}} class in {{models.py}} does not reflect this, however it is in
> [migrations/versions/1b38cef5b76e_add_dagrun.py|https://github.com/apache/incubator-airflow/blob/master/airflow/migrations/versions/1b38cef5b76e_add_dagrun.py#L42]
> I looked for other migrations correting this, but could not find any. As this
> is not reflected in the model, I guess this is a bug?
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
