+1 for provide consistent behavior across the board my 2c:
+1 for REST interface (preferred for external general management perspective) -1 for properties to auto clean; this can be achieved with cron and rest call Now about GraphQL: the platform today is heavily invested in such interface, so it might make sense. BUT I’d consider it in a second moment. On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 6:52 AM Francisco Javier Tirado Sarti < ftira...@redhat.com> wrote: > Hi Enrique, > If we configure such policies through properties, it won't be enough to > define a naming convention and rely on the target platform configuration > capabilities (SpringBoot or Quarkus)?. > > On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 12:36 PM Enrique Gonzalez Martinez < > egonza...@apache.org> wrote: > > > Hi Francisco > > > > The discussion we need to have before how to achieve certain features, is > > the overall of the user experience. If you want to clean it up that way > it > > is fine by me. I have nothing against setting policy related to some sort > > of clean up for a process completed some time ago. > > > > As we discussed previously the data index is a snapshot of the last state > > of the process instance included completed, but nothing was said once > > completed when we need to clean that up so any policy is welcome. How to > > achieve that policy is something completely different. > > > > The main problem is how every microservice is exposing that API to the > end > > user or consumer (other system) and which system is going to be the > façade > > for complex deployments and operations. That is the discussion I was > > mentioning before. > > > > What I want to avoid is to set different policies among components and we > > should strive to be as much as possible to offer certain capabilities in > > the same fashion, e.g: clean up mechanism. > > In the same way I want to avoid making the current system more complex > than > > they are. So far they are aligned offering one simple responsibility but > I > > would be against mixing for instance job service with data index. > > > > El mié, 21 feb 2024 a las 12:13, Francisco Javier Tirado Sarti (< > > ftira...@redhat.com>) escribió: > > > > > Hi Enrique, > > > In the case of data index I think the data to be purged is finished > > process > > > instances (I do not think we should remove process instance that has > been > > > alive for ages, even if it is very likely they are not going to be ever > > > completed) > > > Once you delete those process instances, you also delete the associated > > > user tasks and jobs. > > > Therefore the problem is relatively simple, to be able to configure how > > > much time a completed process instance should remain in the data index > > > database. We can take a simple approach: a property with a min duration > > > that cannot be changed once data index is started; a slightly complex > > one: > > > the same property but watching it to react for changes; or the full > > suite: > > > an admin API to be able to change the policy at any moment. > > > I think this discussion is worth having. > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 6:15 AM Enrique Gonzalez Martinez < > > > egonza...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Martin, the main problem regarding the purge is because it is > still > > > > unclear the policy for what tech to use and the future components. > > > > > > > > Recently we had a discussion about proposing graphql for this sort of > > > admin > > > > tasks. So far for subsystems we have been using rest endpoints (like > > > update > > > > timers or modify human task or change processes). There is one > > exception > > > > which is the gateway that is pure graphql and somehow uses graphql > for > > > > everything making complex operations under the hood. > > > > > > > > This has somehow frozen the purge for data audit for a bit and the > > > proposal > > > > was to use rest endpoints to do the clean up in the component and > offer > > > the > > > > graphql counterpart in the gateway promoting it to a first class > > citizen > > > > component instead of having it embedded in the data index. > > > > > > > > I would suggest to come up at least with a policy first regarding the > > > > convention every component should address this. > > > > > > > > > > > > El mar, 20 feb 2024, 23:39, Martin Weiler <mwei...@ibm.com.invalid> > > > > escribió: > > > > > > > > > IMO, it is good to have this discussion around data sanity now > > instead > > > of > > > > > putting it off until later when data has already accumulated in > > > > production > > > > > environments. > > > > > > > > > > Based on the input here, we are dealing with three types of data: > > > > > 1. Runtime data - active instances only, engine cleans up the data > > > > > automatically at process instance end > > > > > 2. Historic log data - data created by data-audit intended for long > > > term > > > > > storage > > > > > 3. Data-index data - somehow this data falls in between the two > > > > > aforementioned categories, with the idea of the data being > "recent", > > > but > > > > > not restricted to active instances only > > > > > > > > > > We'd need purge strategies for both #2 and #3 (perhaps different > > ones, > > > or > > > > > with different config settings) in order to prevent unlimited data > > > > growth. > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________ > > > > > From: Enrique Gonzalez Martinez <egonza...@apache.org> > > > > > Sent: Monday, February 19, 2024 7:11 AM > > > > > To: dev@kie.apache.org > > > > > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [DISCUSSION] Performance issues with > > data-index > > > > > persistence addon > > > > > > > > > > Hi Francisco, > > > > > To give you more context about this. > > > > > > > > > > STP is a concept, a process with certain constraints: no > persistence > > > and > > > > > returning the outcome in the call (sync execution with no idle > > states). > > > > It > > > > > was a requirement from a user in the past. One of the requirements > > was > > > > > leaving no trail. In v7 was easy because you could disable the > audit > > in > > > > > that case. Actually we have the same way to do what we did in v7 in > > > here > > > > as > > > > > you can add/remove index just removing deps. > > > > > > > > > > We have the same outcome with different approaches and STP is > already > > > > > delivered. > > > > > > > > > > El lun, 19 feb 2024 a las 14:46, Francisco Javier Tirado Sarti (< > > > > > ftira...@redhat.com>) escribió: > > > > > > > > > > > Regarding STP (which is not a concept that we have in the code. I > > > mean > > > > > STP > > > > > > are processes as nonSTP are), I guess, as all processes, they > were > > > kept > > > > > in > > > > > > DataIndex once completed because users wanted (and still wants) > to > > > > check > > > > > > the result once the call had been performed. If we want to leave > no > > > > trace > > > > > > of them in DataIndex for some reason, we will need to make it a > > > > > > Runtimes concept so DataIndex can handle them in a different way. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 2:27 PM Enrique Gonzalez Martinez < > > > > > > egonza...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alex: > > > > > > > Right now the data index is working in the same way as it did > in > > v7 > > > > > with > > > > > > > the emitters. The only difference between two impl is that in > > here > > > > the > > > > > > > storage is pgsql instead elastic search. You are right > regarding > > > is > > > > a > > > > > > > snapshot of the last state of the process but we did never > define > > > how > > > > > > long > > > > > > > would be alive that dats Honestly i am happy right now with the > > way > > > > it > > > > > > > works. The clean up mechanism is still tbd because we still > need > > to > > > > > > discuss > > > > > > > other stuff first. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regarding stp is to leave no trail because u can get the > outcome > > > > > directly > > > > > > > from the call. It was defined like that in v7. So there is no > use > > > for > > > > > the > > > > > > > index or the audit. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > El lun, 19 feb 2024, 14:13, Francisco Javier Tirado Sarti < > > > > > > > ftira...@redhat.com> escribió: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Alex, > > > > > > > > There has been some confusion about the purpose of DataIndex. > > To > > > be > > > > > > > honest > > > > > > > > I believe they were already sorted out, but your e-mail makes > > me > > > > > think > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > is not the case ;). I let Kris to clarify that with you. My > > view > > > is > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > data-index is a way to query recently closed and active > > processes > > > > > (the > > > > > > > key > > > > > > > > here is the definition of recently, which in my opinion > should > > be > > > > > > > > configurable) > > > > > > > > But, besides that discussion and being pragmatic, keeping > > > finishing > > > > > > > process > > > > > > > > instances "for a while" in DataIndex was the only way for > users > > > to > > > > > > query > > > > > > > > the result of straight through processes. That's a function > > that > > > > > cannot > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > removed right now > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 1:33 PM Alex Porcelli < > > > porce...@apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if data index was supposed to provide snapshot view of the > > > > process > > > > > > > > > instance… why do we keep it after the process instance is > > > > finished? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 7:12 AM Francisco Javier Tirado > > Sarti < > > > > > > > > > ftira...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Martin. > > > > > > > > > > After taking a deeper look at this, I realize that the > > > > behaviour > > > > > is > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > expected one. > > > > > > > > > > Runtimes DB does not track the completed process instance > > > > (that's > > > > > > > what > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > JDBCProcessInstances warn is telling us), but DataIndex, > as > > > > > > expected, > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > tracking it in processes and nodes table. And yes it will > > > grow > > > > > over > > > > > > > > time. > > > > > > > > > > What we need is some configurable purge mechanism for > > > > DataIndex, > > > > > so > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > > eventually removes older completed process instances. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 12:59 PM Francisco Javier Tirado > > > Sarti > > > > < > > > > > > > > > > ftira...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Martin, > > > > > > > > > > > Good catch!. Looks like the skipping performed for > > process > > > > > > > instances > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > not applied to node instances. Something we definitely > > need > > > > to > > > > > > > review > > > > > > > > > on > > > > > > > > > > > the runtimes side. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 11:59 PM Martin Weiler > > > > > > > > <mwei...@ibm.com.invalid > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On a somewhat related note, testing a simple workflow > > > (start > > > > > -> > > > > > > > > script > > > > > > > > > > >> node -> end), I see the following messages in the > logs: > > > > > > > > > > >> 2024-02-12 22:49:50,493 28758dde544c WARN > > > > > > > > > > >> > > [org.kie.kogito.persistence.jdbc.JDBCProcessInstances:-1] > > > > > > > > > > >> (executor-thread-3) Skipping create of process > instance > > > id: > > > > > > > > > > >> 7083088e-b899-47cb-b85c-5d9ccb0aa166, state: 2 > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> So far, so good. And I'd expect to see no trace of > this > > > > > process > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > >> database if I don't have data audit enabled. > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> However, the 'processes' table contains a row with > > > state=2, > > > > > with > > > > > > > > > related > > > > > > > > > > >> entries in the 'nodes' table. In a load test, I see > > these > > > > > tables > > > > > > > > grow > > > > > > > > > > >> significantly over time. Am I missing something to > have > > > > these > > > > > > > > entries > > > > > > > > > > >> cleaned up automatically? > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> ________________________________________ > > > > > > > > > > >> From: Martin Weiler <mwei...@ibm.com.INVALID> > > > > > > > > > > >> Sent: Monday, February 12, 2024 3:40 PM > > > > > > > > > > >> To: dev@kie.apache.org > > > > > > > > > > >> Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: [DISCUSSION] Performance > issues > > > with > > > > > > > > > data-index > > > > > > > > > > >> persistence addon > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> Thanks everyone for your input. Based on this > > discussion, > > > I > > > > > > opened > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > >> following PR: > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-kie-kogito-apps/pull/1985 > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> With this change, the performance seems to be stable > > over > > > > > time: > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zkullvfrJpRp7TRjxDa41ok6kEIR7Fty/view?usp=sharing > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> Martin > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> ________________________________________ > > > > > > > > > > >> From: Gonzalo Muñoz <gmuno...@apache.org> > > > > > > > > > > >> Sent: Friday, February 9, 2024 9:42 AM > > > > > > > > > > >> To: dev@kie.apache.org > > > > > > > > > > >> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [DISCUSSION] Performance > issues > > > with > > > > > > > > > data-index > > > > > > > > > > >> persistence addon > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> Great work Francisco, > > > > > > > > > > >> Martin, take a look at this link with some related > tips > > > (in > > > > > case > > > > > > > you > > > > > > > > > > find > > > > > > > > > > >> it useful): > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > https://www.cybertec-postgresql.com/en/index-your-foreign-key/ > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> El vie, 9 feb 2024 a las 17:20, Francisco Javier > Tirado > > > > Sarti > > > > > (< > > > > > > > > > > >> ftira...@redhat.com>) escribió: > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > For the moment being, we will keep JPA till we > exhaust > > > all > > > > > > > > > > >> possibilities, > > > > > > > > > > >> > let's call switching from jpa to jdbc our hidden > plan > > B > > > ;) > > > > > > > > > > >> > I already told Martin, but in order everyone to > know, > > > just > > > > > > after > > > > > > > > > > writing > > > > > > > > > > >> > the previous email, I thought "what if Postgres is > not > > > > > > > > automatically > > > > > > > > > > >> > indexing foreign keys like mysql?" and, eureka > > > > > > > > > > >> > Postgres doc > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/ddl-constraints.html > > > > > > > > > > >> > Mysql doc > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/8.0/en/constraint-foreign-key.html > > > > > > > > > > >> > These are the relevant excerpt > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > *Postgresql* > > > > > > > > > > >> > *A foreign key must reference columns that either > are > > a > > > > > > primary > > > > > > > > key > > > > > > > > > or > > > > > > > > > > >> form > > > > > > > > > > >> > a unique constraint, or are columns from a > non-partial > > > > > unique > > > > > > > > index. > > > > > > > > > > >> This > > > > > > > > > > >> > means that the referenced columns always have an > index > > > to > > > > > > allow > > > > > > > > > > >> efficient > > > > > > > > > > >> > lookups on whether a referencing row has a match. > > Since > > > a > > > > > > DELETE > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > > >> row > > > > > > > > > > >> > from the referenced table or an UPDATE of a > referenced > > > > > column > > > > > > > will > > > > > > > > > > >> require > > > > > > > > > > >> > a scan of the referencing table for rows matching > the > > > old > > > > > > value, > > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > >> > often a good idea to index the referencing columns > > too. > > > > > > Because > > > > > > > > this > > > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > >> not > > > > > > > > > > >> > always needed, and there are many choices available > on > > > how > > > > > to > > > > > > > > index, > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > >> > declaration of a foreign key constraint does not > > > > > automatically > > > > > > > > > create > > > > > > > > > > an > > > > > > > > > > >> > index on the referencing columns.* > > > > > > > > > > >> > *Mysql* > > > > > > > > > > >> > *MySQL requires that foreign key columns be indexed; > > if > > > > you > > > > > > > > create a > > > > > > > > > > >> table > > > > > > > > > > >> > with a foreign key constraint but no index on a > given > > > > > column, > > > > > > an > > > > > > > > > index > > > > > > > > > > >> is > > > > > > > > > > >> > created. * > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > So I asked Martin to especially create an index for > > > > > > > > > > process_instance_id > > > > > > > > > > >> > column on nodes table > > > > > > > > > > >> > I think that will fix the problem detected on the > > thread > > > > > dump. > > > > > > > > > > >> > The simpler process test to verify queries are fine > > > still > > > > > > > stands, > > > > > > > > > > >> though ;) > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > On Fri, Feb 9, 2024 at 5:10 PM Tibor Zimányi < > > > > > > > tzima...@apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > I always preferred pure JDBC over Hibernate > myself, > > > just > > > > > for > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > sake > > > > > > > > > > >> of > > > > > > > > > > >> > > control of what is happening :) So I would not -1 > > that > > > > > > myself. > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > Tibor > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > Dňa pi 9. 2. 2024, 17:00 Francisco Javier Tirado > > > Sarti < > > > > > > > > > > >> > > ftira...@redhat.com> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > napísal(a): > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Usually I do not want to talk about work in > > progress > > > > > > because > > > > > > > > > > >> > preliminary > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > conclusions are pretty volatile but, well, there > > > are a > > > > > > > couple > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > >> things > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > that can be concluded from the really valuable > > > > > information > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > >> Martin > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > provided. > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > 1) In order to be able to determine if the > number > > of > > > > > > > > statements > > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > >> > larger > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > than expected, I asked Martin to test with a > > simpler > > > > > > process > > > > > > > > > > >> > definition. > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > One with just three nodes: start, script and > end. > > > The > > > > > > script > > > > > > > > one > > > > > > > > > > >> should > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > change just one variable. This way we can > analyze > > if > > > > the > > > > > > > > number > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > >> > > queries > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > is the expected one. From the single log (audit > > was > > > > > > > activated > > > > > > > > > > them) > > > > > > > > > > >> my > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > conclusion is that the number of insert/updates > > over > > > > > > > processes > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > >> > nodes > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > (there a lot over task, that I will prefer to > skip > > > for > > > > > > now, > > > > > > > > baby > > > > > > > > > > >> steps) > > > > > > > > > > >> > > is > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > the expected one. > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > 2) Analysing the thread dump, we see around 15 > > > threads > > > > > > > > executing > > > > > > > > > > >> this > > > > > > > > > > >> > > line > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > at > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > org.kie.kogito.index.jpa.storage.ProcessInstanceEntityStorage.indexNode(ProcessInstanceEntityStorage.java:125), > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > so its pretty clear the code to be optimized ;). > > I'm > > > > > > > > evaluating > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > possibilities within JPA/Hibernate, but I'm > > starting > > > > to > > > > > > > think > > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > >> it > > > > > > > > > > >> > > might > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > be better to switch to JDBC and skip hibernate. > > Our > > > > > lives > > > > > > > will > > > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > > >> > > simpler, > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > especially with a schema relatively simple like > > ours > > > > > (that > > > > > > > > will > > > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > > >> my > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > recommendation if I was an external consultant) > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > On Fri, Feb 9, 2024 at 4:15 PM Tibor Zimányi < > > > > > > > > > tzima...@apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > this will be a bit off-topic. However as far > as > > > > > > > > performance, I > > > > > > > > > > >> think > > > > > > > > > > >> > we > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > should think about that we have string primary > > > keys > > > > > > > (IDs). I > > > > > > > > > > would > > > > > > > > > > >> > > expect > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > the database systems are much better with > > indexing > > > > > > numeric > > > > > > > > > keys > > > > > > > > > > >> than > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > strings. I remember from the past, when I was > > > > working > > > > > > with > > > > > > > > > DBs, > > > > > > > > > > >> that > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > using > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > strings as keys or indexes was a discouraged > > > > practice. > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > Tibor > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > Dňa št 8. 2. 2024, 22:45 Martin Weiler > > > > > > > > > <mwei...@ibm.com.invalid > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > napísal(a): > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > I changed the test to use MongoDB [1] and I > > > don't > > > > > see > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > > >> performance > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > degradation with this setup [2]. > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Please keep us posted of your findings. > > Thanks! > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Martin > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > [1] > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/martinweiler/job-service-refactor-test/tree/mongodb > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > [2] > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NfacXaxJlgRMw4OQ5S20cvkzvaUKUVFj/view?usp=sharing > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > ________________________________________ > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > From: Francisco Javier Tirado Sarti < > > > > > > > ftira...@redhat.com> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, February 7, 2024 11:40 AM > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > To: dev@kie.apache.org > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [DISCUSSION] > > Performance > > > > > > issues > > > > > > > > with > > > > > > > > > > >> > > data-index > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > persistence addon > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > yes, it can be index degradation because of > > > size, > > > > > but > > > > > > I > > > > > > > > > > believe > > > > > > > > > > >> (I > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > might > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > be > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > wrong) the db is too small (yet) for that. > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > But, eventually, Postgres, when the DB is > huge > > > > > enough, > > > > > > > > > > >> unavoidably > > > > > > > > > > >> > > will > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > behave like the graphic that Martin sent. > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Since I believe we are not huge enough > (yet), > > > lets > > > > > > rule > > > > > > > > out > > > > > > > > > > >> another > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > issue > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > by analysing the sql logs (I requested those > > to > > > > > Martin > > > > > > > > > offline > > > > > > > > > > >> and > > > > > > > > > > >> > he > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > is > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > going to kindly collect them). > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Also Im curious to know if Mongo behave in > the > > > > same > > > > > > way. > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > On Wed, Feb 7, 2024 at 7:25 PM Enrique > > Gonzalez > > > > > > > Martinez < > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > egonza...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Hi Francisco, > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > I would highly recommend to check indexes > > and > > > > how > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > updates > > > > > > > > > > >> > work > > > > > > > > > > >> > > in > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > data > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > index to avoid full scan table and lock > the > > > full > > > > > > > table. > > > > > > > > > Some > > > > > > > > > > >> db > > > > > > > > > > >> > are > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > very > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > sensitive to that. > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > El mié, 7 feb 2024, 18:41, Francisco > Javier > > > > Tirado > > > > > > > > Sarti < > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > ftira...@redhat.com> escribió: > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Hi Martin, > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > While I analyze the data, let me ask you > > if > > > it > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > possible > > > > > > > > > > >> to > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > perform > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > another check (similar in a way to > > disabling > > > > > > > > data-index > > > > > > > > > > like > > > > > > > > > > >> > you > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > do) > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Can > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > you switch to MongoDB persistence and > > check > > > if > > > > > the > > > > > > > > same > > > > > > > > > > >> > > degradation > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > there for postgres remains? > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > I do not know if this is feasible but > will > > > > > > certainly > > > > > > > > > > >> indicate > > > > > > > > > > >> > the > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > problem > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > is on the postgres storage layer and I > do > > > not > > > > > > have a > > > > > > > > > clear > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > prediction > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > what we will see when doing this switch. > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 7, 2024 at 6:37 PM Martin > > Weiler > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > <mwei...@ibm.com.invalid > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Hi Francisco, > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > thanks for your work on this important > > > > topic! > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > I would like to share some test > results > > > > here, > > > > > > > which > > > > > > > > > > might > > > > > > > > > > >> > help > > > > > > > > > > >> > > to > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > improve > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > the codebase even further. I am using > > the > > > > > jmeter > > > > > > > > based > > > > > > > > > > >> test > > > > > > > > > > >> > > case > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > from > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Pere > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > and Enrique (thanks guys!) [1] which > > uses > > > a > > > > > load > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > 30 > > > > > > > > > > >> > threads > > > > > > > > > > >> > > to > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > 1) start a new process instance (POST) > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > 2) retrieve tasks for a user (GET) > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > 3) fetches task details (GET) > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > 4) complete a task (POST) > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > 5) execute a query on data-audit > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > With this test setup, I noticed that > the > > > > > > > performance > > > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > > > >> the > > > > > > > > > > >> > > POST > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > requests, in particular the one to > > start a > > > > new > > > > > > > > process > > > > > > > > > > >> > > instance, > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > degrades > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > over time - see graph [2]. If I run > the > > > same > > > > > > test > > > > > > > > > > without > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > data-index, > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > then > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > there is no such performance > degradation > > > > [3]. > > > > > > You > > > > > > > > can > > > > > > > > > > >> find a > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > thread > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > dump > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > captured a few minutes into the first > > test > > > > > here > > > > > > > [4] > > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > >> > might > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > help > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > see > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > some of the contention points. > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > I'd appreciate if you could take a > look > > > and > > > > > see > > > > > > if > > > > > > > > > there > > > > > > > > > > >> is > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > something > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > can be further improved based on your > > > > previous > > > > > > > work. > > > > > > > > > If > > > > > > > > > > >> you > > > > > > > > > > >> > > need > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > any > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > additional data, let me know, but > > > otherwise > > > > it > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > >> > > straightforward > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > run > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > the jmeter test as well. > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Martin > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > [1] > > > > > > > > > > >> > https://github.com/pefernan/job-service-refactor-test/ > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > [2] > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Gqn-ixE05kXv2jdssAUlnMuUVcHxIYZ0/view?usp=sharing > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > [3] > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/10gVNyb4JYg_bA18bNhY9dEDbPn3TOxL7/view?usp=sharing > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > [4] > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jVrtsO49gCvUlnaC9AUAtkVKTm4PbdUv/view?usp=sharing > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________ > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > From: Francisco Javier Tirado Sarti < > > > > > > > > > > ftira...@redhat.com> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2024 9:13 > > AM > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > To: dev@kie.apache.org > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Cc: Pere Fernandez Perez > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [DISCUSSION] > > > > > Performance > > > > > > > > > issues > > > > > > > > > > >> with > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > data-index > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > persistence addon > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Hi Alex, > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > I did not take times (which depends > on a > > > > > number > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > >> variables > > > > > > > > > > >> > > that > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > drastically change between > > environments), > > > > but > > > > > > > verify > > > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > >> the > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > number > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > updates has been reduced drastically > > > without > > > > > > > losing > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > functionality, > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > which > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > objectively a good thing. If before > the > > > > > change, > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > > > every > > > > > > > > > > >> > node > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > executed, > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > we > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > have an update for every node > previously > > > > > > executed, > > > > > > > > so > > > > > > > > > > if a > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > process > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > have > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > 50 > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > nodes to execute, we were performing > > > nearly > > > > > > > 50*51/2 > > > > > > > > > > >> updates, > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > which > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > gives > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > us > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > a total of 1275 updates, now we have > > just > > > > one > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > > every > > > > > > > > > > >> node > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > being > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > executed, implying a total of 50 > > updates. > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 17, 2024 at 3:18 PM Alex > > > > Porcelli > > > > > < > > > > > > > > > > >> > > a...@porcelli.me> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Francisco, > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > I noticed that your PR has been > > merged, > > > > but > > > > > I > > > > > > > was > > > > > > > > > > >> expecting > > > > > > > > > > >> > > (at > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > least > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > was my understanding from this > thread) > > > > that > > > > > > > before > > > > > > > > > > >> merging > > > > > > > > > > >> > > some > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > benchmark data would be shared in > > > advance > > > > - > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > assess > > > > > > > > > > >> the > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > cost/benefit > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > of such a decent size change. > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Do you have any information to > share? > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Dec 23, 2023 at 4:02 AM > > > Francisco > > > > > > Javier > > > > > > > > > > Tirado > > > > > > > > > > >> > Sarti > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > <ftira...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Yes, as intended, now we have one > > > select > > > > > and > > > > > > > one > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > insert/update > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > per > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > node > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > event. > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > I moved the PR as ready for review > > and > > > > > give > > > > > > > > @Pere > > > > > > > > > > >> > Fernandez > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > Perez > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > <pefer...@redhat.com> permission > to > > > the > > > > > > > branch > > > > > > > > so > > > > > > > > > > he > > > > > > > > > > >> can > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > edit > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > it > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > next two weeks (Ill be on PTO) if > > > > > desired, > > > > > > > > before > > > > > > > > > > >> > merging. > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 5:58 PM > Alex > > > > > > Porcelli > > > > > > > < > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > a...@porcelli.me> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Cool, thank you Francisco! > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Did you manage to get some > > > preliminary > > > > > > data > > > > > > > > > about > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > improvements? > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 11:52 AM > > > > > Francisco > > > > > > > > > Javier > > > > > > > > > > >> > Tirado > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > Sarti > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > <ftira...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, after some delay because > of > > > > > > quarkus 3 > > > > > > > > > > >> migration. > > > > > > > > > > >> > > Im > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > refining > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > this > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > draft PR > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-kie-kogito-apps/pull/1941 > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at > 5:48 PM > > > Alex > > > > > > > > Porcelli > > > > > > > > > < > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > a...@porcelli.me> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any update or new findings > on > > > this > > > > > > > topic? > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at > > 8:38 AM > > > > > > > Francisco > > > > > > > > > > Javier > > > > > > > > > > >> > > Tirado > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Sarti > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <ftira...@redhat.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Alex, > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > After considering > different > > > > > options > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > improve > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > performance, > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > we > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > feel > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is time to "partially" > move > > > away > > > > > > from > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > >> current > > > > > > > > > > >> > > Map > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > style > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > interface ( > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-kie-kogito-apps/blob/main/persistence-commons/persistence-commons-api/src/main/java/org/kie/kogito/persistence/api/Storage.java > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ) > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which was shared with > > Trusty, > > > to > > > > > one > > > > > > > > more > > > > > > > > > > >> > suitable > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > for > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > usage > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > with a > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > relational DB like > > postgresql > > > > (but > > > > > > > still > > > > > > > > > > >> > compatible > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > with > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > big > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > table > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > dbs). > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The idea will be to > replace > > > > > generic > > > > > > > > > Storage > > > > > > > > > > >> > > interface > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > by > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > four > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > specific > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > interfaces (which will > > inherit > > > > > from > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > common > > > > > > > > > > >> one > > > > > > > > > > >> > > that > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > keeps > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > query > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > part > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > at is it. with get and > query > > > > > > methods), > > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > >> will > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > include > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > required > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > modification operations > for > > > the > > > > > four > > > > > > > > > > DataIndex > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > "domains": > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > processinstance, > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > usertask, > processdefinitions > > > and > > > > > > jobs. > > > > > > > > > Those > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > interfaces > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > will > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > define > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > methods > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > like addNode, addVariable, > > > > > > updateTask, > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > addAttachment..... > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > will > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > allow > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the persistent layer > > > > > implementation > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > just > > > > > > > > > > >> > update > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > the > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > needed > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > info > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > DB (for example, for > > addNode > > > in > > > > > > > > Postgres, > > > > > > > > > > >> just > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > insert > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > a > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > row > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > into > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > nodes > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > table, for addNode in > Mongo, > > > > > > basically > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > >> same > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > atomic > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > upsert > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > operation > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that is currently done). > > > > > Therefore, > > > > > > we > > > > > > > > > > >> increase > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > performance > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Postgres > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and keep the current one > for > > > > > Mongo. > > > > > > > The > > > > > > > > > > >> current > > > > > > > > > > >> > DB > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > schemas > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > won't > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > touched. > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Since the code change is > > > large, > > > > I > > > > > do > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > > > think > > > > > > > > > > >> > I'll > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > be > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > able > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > have > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > PR > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ready till next week. > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But before starting, > please > > > let > > > > me > > > > > > > know > > > > > > > > if > > > > > > > > > > >> that > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > approach > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > fine > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > you. > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards. > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Nov 24, 2023 at > > > 6:55 PM > > > > > Alex > > > > > > > > > > Porcelli > > > > > > > > > > >> < > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > a...@porcelli.me> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you Francisco to > > > getting > > > > > > > deeper > > > > > > > > on > > > > > > > > > > >> this… > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Looking forward to see > the > > > > > results > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > your > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > suggested > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > improvements. > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Nov 24, 2023 at > > > > 9:40 AM > > > > > > > > > Francisco > > > > > > > > > > >> > Javier > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > Tirado > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Sarti < > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ftira...@redhat.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I forgot to attach the > > > > queries > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Nov 24, 2023 > at > > > > > 3:04 PM > > > > > > > > > > Francisco > > > > > > > > > > >> > > Javier > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Tirado > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Sarti < > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ftira...@redhat.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Hi, > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> A brief update on > this > > > > topic. > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> After doing a simple > > test > > > > > with > > > > > > > > > example > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-kie-kogito-examples/tree/stable/serverless-workflow-examples/serverless-workflow-data-index-quarkus > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> the number of updates > > > over > > > > > > Nodes > > > > > > > > > table > > > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > >> > n*n, > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > so > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > we > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > manage > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > obtain a > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> perfect quadratic > > > > performance > > > > > > > > > > >> degradation. > > > > > > > > > > >> > The > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > problem > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > worse > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > case > > > >
