Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Optionally use rollup counts SQL instead of Dataflow job for GroupItems entity group. #1006

Conversation

marikomedlock
Copy link
Collaborator

Add a new config property rollupCountsSql for GroupItems type entity groups. Default is null, matching existing behavior. When specified the indexer does not use Dataflow to compute rollup counts in the WriteRollupCounts job. Instead it reads it directly from the specified query.

It would be good to support this config property for all entity groups, not just for this specific relationship in a single entity group type. However, this is the only change could help support variant search, so we can plan to do the larger, more correct & comprehensive change in follow-on PRs.

The aouCT_testonly/variantPerson entity group is currently the only config that specifies this property. Manually tested indexing this group and confirmed that the Dataflow job doesn't run.

@dexamundsen dexamundsen merged commit aad1c7d into mm-use-source-id-pairs-table-for-group-items-relationship Sep 16, 2024
8 checks passed
@dexamundsen dexamundsen deleted the mm-use-rollup-counts-sql-instead-of-dataflow-job branch September 16, 2024 19:34
dexamundsen added a commit that referenced this pull request Sep 16, 2024
)

* Optionally use source id-pairs table for GroupItems relationship.

* Move isSourceTable method into base IndexTable class.

* Optionally use rollup counts SQL instead of Dataflow job for GroupItems entity group. (#1006)

* Optionally use rollup counts SQL instead of Dataflow job for GroupItems entity group.

* Add SZRollupCounts to annotation processor list of classes.

---------

Co-authored-by: Dexter Amundsen <dexamundsen@verily.com>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants