Hi Khushboo,
We looked at your updated patch:
- the tests look good!
- there's a small comment header change needed in size_prettify_spec
- it looks like the previous and new functions have different behaviors
(where the new behavior changes units on 10000 of the lower unit, a 9999GB)
- We should clarify that in size_prettify, we were mostly talking about
name readability in your first patch, and that the original structure was
better (especially the sizes array)
At first glance, the new sizePrettify appears to behave like a for loop, so
that might be the simplest refactor.
Thanks,
Joao and George
On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 5:02 AM, Khushboo Vashi <
khushboo.va...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Please find the attached updated patch.
>
> Thanks,
> Khushboo
>
> On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 7:58 PM, Matthew Kleiman <mklei...@pivotal.io>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Khushboo,
>>
>> That sounds good. Sorry if we weren't clear at first.
>>
>> Have a good holiday weekend!
>>
>> Sarah & Matt
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 4:35 AM, Khushboo Vashi <
>> khushboo.va...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Sarah,
>>>
>>> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 7:38 PM, Sarah McAlear <smcal...@pivotal.io>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Kushboo!
>>>>
>>>> We understand your point, but we believe that relying on 2 independent
>>>> functions to deliver the same formatting can become a problem if the PG
>>>> function changes. Our suggestion is to use a single function in our
>>>> javascript code to do this formatting.
>>>>
>>>> It seems reasonable to me and I am going to use a single javascript
>>> function which will support PB also (as per Dave we should add support till
>>> PB) .
>>>
>>>> If the community believes we can live with this risk, let's move
>>>> forward.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks!
>>>> Sarah & Joao
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 1:50 AM, Khushboo Vashi <
>>>> khushboo.va...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Joao & Sarah,
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 8:46 PM, Joao Pedro De Almeida Pereira <
>>>>> jdealmeidapere...@pivotal.io> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Khushboo!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks for your reply!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *SQL Files:*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - Is there a way to avoid conditionals here?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - Maybe we can use the same javascript function to prettify all
>>>>>>>> the sizes
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In case of collection node (ex: Databases), I have implemented this
>>>>>>>> functionality via putting a formatter for a back-grid column. So, it is
>>>>>>>> applicable for the entire column not for the individual cell. To apply
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> javascript function on a single cell for the column (string column),
>>>>>>>> first
>>>>>>>> we need to identify that cell and then apply the function, I think
>>>>>>>> this is
>>>>>>>> overhead. Just to avoid conditional sql template I would not prefer
>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>> approach.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> We are not totally sure we understood what you meant on the previous
>>>>>> statement. Are you saying that the conditionals in SQL are used to ensure
>>>>>> that we can apply a javascript function at column level instead of cell
>>>>>> level?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Correct.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Our concern is that the templates are being made more complex and
>>>>>> inconsistencies are introduced in the code and the UI.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Inconsistencies in the UI can be avoided through making the
>>>>> size_formatter same as pg_size_pretty function which I will implement.
>>>>> I have checked the pg_size_pretty function code and it supports till
>>>>> TB format, so I think we should keep till TB only.
>>>>>
>>>>> In this particular example, we are allowing the backend to respond
>>>>>> sometimes with prettified data and sometimes without it, so at UI level
>>>>>> we
>>>>>> will have inconsistencies between screens or more complex Javascript code
>>>>>> to support sometimes prettifying and sometimes not prettify the same
>>>>>> fields.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We have separate logic for collection and single node in
>>>>> statistics.js and we are using javascript code for prettifying only for
>>>>> collection node.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> What we were thinking was to maybe not specify on the SQL level and
>>>>>> have the same format for "Size" everywhere in the UI.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Here our main concern is inconsistency in "Size" format in the UI that
>>>>> can be avoided as I said earlier.
>>>>> We are using pg_size_pretty function for different fields like Size,
>>>>> Index Size, Table space size, Tuple length, Size of Temporary files in
>>>>> different modules and some of them are cell level and we don't require to
>>>>> put overhead on cell level fields as sorting is not required for
>>>>> individual
>>>>> node statistics.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>> Joao & Sarah
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 11:48 PM, Khushboo Vashi <
>>>>>> khushboo.va...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Joao & Sarah,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks for reviewing the patch.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 8:34 PM, Joao Pedro De Almeida Pereira <
>>>>>>> jdealmeidapere...@pivotal.io> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hello Khushboo,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We reviewed the this patch and have some suggestions:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *Python:*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The functionality for adding the "can_prettify" is repeated in
>>>>>>>> multiple places. Maybe this could be extracted into a function.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When I have implemented this, my first thought is exactly same as
>>>>>>> you suggested but while looking at the code I felt its not a good idea
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> have a function. In case of a function, we need to pass the whole
>>>>>>> result-set as well as the list of fields which we need to be prettified.
>>>>>>> So, only for 2 lines, I didn't find any reason to make a function.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *Javascript:*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - The class Backgrid.SizeFormatter doesn't seem to have any
>>>>>>>> tests.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sure, will do.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - The function pg_size_pretty displays bytes and Kilobytes
>>>>>>>> differently.
>>>>>>>> - Is it possible to add PB as well?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Will check and add PB.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>> - The function is a little bit hard to read, is it possible to
>>>>>>>> refactor using private functions like:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Will make it more readable.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> fromRaw: function (rawData, model) {
>>>>>>>> var unitIdx = findDataUnitIndex(rawData);
>>>>>>>> if (unitIdx == 0) {
>>>>>>>> return rawData + ' ' + this.dataUnits[i];
>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>> return formatOutput(rawData, unitIdx);
>>>>>>>> },
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - In statistics.js:326 we believe it would make the code more
>>>>>>>> readable if we change the variable "c" to "rawColumn" and "col" to
>>>>>>>> "column".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I will change the variable name from "c" to "rawColumn" but I
>>>>>>> think "col" is appropriate as we already have columns variable and
>>>>>>> anyone
>>>>>>> can confuse while reading the code (for columns and column).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *SQL Files:*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - Is there a way to avoid conditionals here?
>>>>>>>> - Maybe we can use the same javascript function to prettify all
>>>>>>>> the sizes
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In case of collection node (ex: Databases), I have implemented this
>>>>>>> functionality via putting a formatter for a back-grid column. So, it is
>>>>>>> applicable for the entire column not for the individual cell. To apply
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> javascript function on a single cell for the column (string column),
>>>>>>> first
>>>>>>> we need to identify that cell and then apply the function, I think this
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>> overhead. Just to avoid conditional sql template I would not prefer this
>>>>>>> approach.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Visually we saw a difference between "Databases" statistics and a
>>>>>>>> specific database statistics. In "Databases" statistics the "Size" is
>>>>>>>> "7.4
>>>>>>>> MB" but when you are in the specific database the "Size" is "7420 kB".
>>>>>>>> Is this the intended behavior?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Only for the Databases (collection node), the client side
>>>>>>> functionality is implemented not for individual node , so this
>>>>>>> behaviour is
>>>>>>> different. For the individual node still, we are using pg_size_pretty
>>>>>>> function
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>> Joao & Sarah
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 7:58 AM, Dave Page <dp...@pgadmin.org>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ashesh, can you review/commit this please?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 10:18 AM, Khushboo Vashi <
>>>>>>>>> khushboo.va...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Fixed RM #2315 : Sorting by size is broken.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Removed the pg_size_pretty function from query for the collection
>>>>>>>>>> and introduced the client side function to convert size into human
>>>>>>>>>> readable
>>>>>>>>>> format. So, the sorting issue is fixed as the algorithm will get the
>>>>>>>>>> actual
>>>>>>>>>> value of size instead of formatted value.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>> Khushboo
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> Sent via pgadmin-hackers mailing list (
>>>>>>>>>> pgadmin-hackers@postgresql.org)
>>>>>>>>>> To make changes to your subscription:
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgadmin-hackers
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Dave Page
>>>>>>>>> Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
>>>>>>>>> Twitter: @pgsnake
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
>>>>>>>>> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> Khushboo
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Khushboo
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Khushboo
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Sent via pgadmin-hackers mailing list (pgadmin-hackers@postgresql.org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgadmin-hackers
>
>
