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

fix performance #3539 #3540

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Feb 4, 2020
Merged

fix performance #3539 #3540

merged 1 commit into from
Feb 4, 2020

Conversation

sleupold
Copy link
Contributor

@sleupold sleupold commented Feb 4, 2020

thanks to @eugene-sea for bringing up and testing this issue.

thanks to Eugene Shalyuk (@eugene-sea) for bringing up this issue
Copy link
Contributor

@mitchelsellers mitchelsellers left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

With some local testing on a large DB this seems to preform well.

@david-poindexter
Copy link
Contributor

@sleupold what issue does this PR address?

@mitchelsellers are we trying to get this in 9.5.0 or 9.5.1?

@valadas valadas added this to the 9.5.0 milestone Feb 4, 2020
Copy link
Contributor

@valadas valadas left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks good to me

@valadas valadas merged commit 33733b0 into dnnsoftware:develop Feb 4, 2020
@sleupold
Copy link
Contributor Author

sleupold commented Feb 4, 2020

@david-poindexter

@sleupold what issue does this PR address?

stated in the title: #3539

@valadas this PR supersedes #3474 , which may be closed now.

@valadas
Copy link
Contributor

valadas commented Feb 5, 2020

@sleupold

stated in the title: #3539

I would be nice next time to have a human readable title only and to put something like:
Closes #3539 or Fixes #3539 in the description.
This would make it easier for release notes and it will close the issue automatically when merged which does not happen when done in the title.

@sleupold
Copy link
Contributor Author

sleupold commented Feb 5, 2020

thanks for the instructions, @valadas

Copy link
Contributor

@dimarobert dimarobert left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@sleupold @mitchelsellers found this while upgrading some of our internal sites.

DROP PROCEDURE {databaseOwner}[{objectQualifier}CoreMessaging_GetNextMessagesForDigestDispatch];
GO

CREATE PROCEDURE [dbo].[CoreMessaging_GetNextMessagesForDigestDispatch]
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

databaseOwner and objectQualifier were needed here. Because of this, the Scheduler in 9.5.0 fails to execute this stored procedure.

FROM {databaseOwner}[{objectQualifier}CoreMessaging_MessageRecipients] R
JOIN (SELECT TOP (@BatchSize)
UserID
FROM dbo.[vw_MessagesForDispatch]
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

here as well.

@valadas
Copy link
Contributor

valadas commented Mar 3, 2020

Thanks for spotting that @dimarobert , however this was already merged. Could you create a new issues about this to make it more actionable please, and well if you can submit a PR that fixes it, even better :)

@sleupold
Copy link
Contributor Author

sleupold commented Mar 3, 2020

I'll create a PR for DNN 9.5.1

@dimarobert
Copy link
Contributor

@sleupold I've created an issue and PR here: #3604

@sleupold
Copy link
Contributor Author

sleupold commented Mar 3, 2020

@dimarobert
your fix is perfect to apply as a workaround for anyone. running DNN 9.5.0 (using non-default object qualifier and/or schema name), but to fix it for future DNN versions, it needs to be adjusted.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants