On Wed, Aug 14 2013, Thomas Maddox wrote:
> Ahhh yep, when I look at the two side-by-side I can see what you're
> saying. Thanks for the explanation!
>
> So, then should I write up a BP for improvements of this sort, like the
> API improvement one? It seems like we may get better results if the SQ
On 8/14/13 3:26 AM, "Julien Danjou" wrote:
>On Tue, Aug 13 2013, Thomas Maddox wrote:
>
>> I was curious about why we went for a JOIN here rather than just using
>>the
>> meter table initially?
>>
>>https://github.com/openstack/ceilometer/blob/master/ceilometer/storage/im
>>pl_sqlalchemy.py#L3
On Tue, Aug 13 2013, Thomas Maddox wrote:
> I was curious about why we went for a JOIN here rather than just using the
> meter table initially?
> https://github.com/openstack/ceilometer/blob/master/ceilometer/storage/impl_sqlalchemy.py#L336-L391.
> Doug had mentioned that some performance testing
Hey team,
I was curious about why we went for a JOIN here rather than just using the
meter table initially?
https://github.com/openstack/ceilometer/blob/master/ceilometer/storage/impl_sqlalchemy.py#L336-L391.
Doug had mentioned that some performance testing had gone on with some of
these queri
