[SERVER-66564] Remove secondary index from config.transactions table Created: 18/May/22 Updated: 05/Feb/24 |
|
| Status: | Backlog |
| Project: | Core Server |
| Component/s: | None |
| Affects Version/s: | None |
| Fix Version/s: | None |
| Type: | Task | Priority: | Major - P3 |
| Reporter: | Andy Schwerin | Assignee: | Adi Zaimi |
| Resolution: | Unresolved | Votes: | 0 |
| Labels: | sharding-nyc-subteam3 | ||
| Remaining Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Time Spent: | Not Specified | ||
| Original Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Issue Links: |
|
||||
| Assigned Teams: |
Sharding NYC
|
||||
| Sprint: | Cluster Scalability 2023-11-13, Cluster Scalability 2023-11-27, Cluster Scalability 2023-12-11, Cluster Scalability 2023-12-25, Cluster Scalability 2024-1-8, Cluster Scalability 2024-1-22, Cluster Scalability 2024-2-5, Cluster Scalability 2024-2-19 | ||||
| Participants: | |||||
| Story Points: | 5 | ||||
| Description |
|
The config.transactions table is frequently written and was not designed with the expectation of having secondary indexes. Recent work in |
| Comments |
| Comment by Andy Schwerin [ 23/May/22 ] |
|
This isn't just a performance optimization. Secondary indexes aren't supposed to be allowed on that collection at all. This is a design violation that happens not to be causing immediate harm. If you still want to put it on the backlog, that's fine, but my complain isn't about its performance impact. |
| Comment by Ratika Gandhi [ 23/May/22 ] |
|
Acknowledged that this is a possible optimization but we would like to wait to hear about changes in performance before assigning resources to this. |