Open Stack

On 08/17/2013 03:10 AM, Julien Danjou wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 16 2013, Jay Pipes wrote:
>
>> Actually, that's the opposite of what I'm suggesting :) I'm suggesting
>> getting rid of the resource_metadata column in the meter table and using the
>> resource table in joins...
>
> I think there's a lot of scenario where this would fail, like for
> example instances being resized; the flavor is a metadata.

I'm proposing that in these cases, a *new* resource would be added to 
the resource table (and its ID inserted in meter) table with the new 
flavor/instance's metadata.

> Though, changing the schema to improve performance is a good one, this
> needs to be thought from the sample sending to the storage, through the
> whole chain. This is something that will break a lot of current
> assumption; that doesn't mean it's bad or we can't do it, just that we
> need to think it through. :)

Yup, understood completely. The change I am proposing would not affect 
any assumptions made from the point of view of a sample sent to storage. 
The current assumption is that a sample's *exact* state at time of 
sampling would be stored so that the exact sample state could be 
reflected even if the underlying resource that triggered the sample 
changed over time.

All I am proposing is a change to the existing implementation of that 
assumption: instead of storing the original resource metadata in the 
meter table, we instead ensure that we store the resource in the 
resource table, and upon new sample records being inserted into the 
meter table, we check to see if the resource for the sample is the same 
as it was last time. If it is, we simply insert the resource ID from 
last time. If it isn't, we add a new record to the resource table that 
describes the new resource attributes, and we insert that new resource 
ID into the meter table for that sample...

Best,
-jay