Hi! > I agree, we should look at some actual traffic to see how many queries > /could/ be cached in a 2/5/10/60 min window. Maybe remove the example > queries from those numbers, to separate the "production" and testing > usage. Also, look at query runtime; if only "cheap" queries would be > cached, there is no point in caching.
Makes sense, but some of the use cases are not implemented yet, and I'm kind of scared of allowing them without caching - e.g. graph embedding - so it's hard to rely on past data. > Once you run a query, you know both the runtime and the result size. > Maybe expensive queries with a huge result set could be cached longer by > default, and cheap/small queries not at all? If you expect your recent > Wikidata edit to change the results from 3 to 4, you should see that > ASAP; if the change would be 50.000 to 50.001, it seems less critical > somehow. That sounds like a good idea, we'll need to check if Varnish allows us to do tricks like this... -- Stas Malyshev smalys...@wikimedia.org _______________________________________________ Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
