Again I'm just not convinced of the perf on this, and it enables us to delete some whole infra over it, we can improve it another time if it's useful to!
Just removing some caching and the expiration of it! There's still more superfluous(?) caching on the item page to audit, but these seem a bit more sensible about avoiding loading extra data.
In the interest of clearing out Resque, I'm just gonna remove a lot of our more complex caching stuff, and we can do a perf pass for things like big item list pages once everything's upgraded. (I'm hopeful that the upgrades themselves improve perf; and if not, that some improved sensibilities 10 years later can find simpler approaches.)
I want to test some logged-in stuff, but the whole openneo_id app is a mess to integrate with (and I want to eliminate it down the line anyway), so here's a simple hacky thing that just gets you into a test user for development!
Turns out ~22% of our users initially land on a trade list.
We like to keep the campaign off the pages where space is at a
premium, so we try to whitelist it to major landing pages in order
to avoid accidentally creating a bad experience on some page :)
I've been doing this manually via email for a long time,
since building new stuff in the logged-in world was a pain in the old env.
But now here we are! Finally, finally :)
In particular, outfit_id == 0 would cause outfit_id? to
return false, so it wouldn't run the outfit presence
validation, so /donations/features would try to load
outfit #0 and fail.
Also, flash[:alert] instead of flash[:error] when outfit_id
is bad.
Turns out we need to assign closeted to actual items, not
the item proxies, since that's what we check against. (I
would've thought they're backed by the same instance of
the item anyway, but, whatever. The fix works :P)
Some lame benchmarking on my box, dev, cache classes, many items:
No proxies:
Fresh JSON: 175, 90, 90, 93, 82, 88, 158, 150, 85, 167 = 117.8
Cached JSON: (none)
Fresh HTML: 371, 327, 355, 328, 322, 346 = 341.5
Cached HTML: 173, 123, 175, 187, 171, 179 = 168
Proxies:
Fresh JSON: 175, 183, 269, 219, 195, 178 = 203.17
Cached JSON: 88, 70, 89, 162, 80, 77 = 94.3
Fresh HTML: 494, 381, 350, 334, 451, 372 = 397
Cached HTML: 176, 170, 104, 101, 111, 116 = 129.7
So, overhead is significant, but the gains when cached (and that should be
all the time, since we currently have 0 evictions) are definitely worth
it. Worth pushing, and probably putting some future effort into reducing
overhead.
On production (again, lame), items#index was consistently averaging
73-74ms when super healthy, and 82ms when pets#index was being louder
than usual. For reference is all. This will probably perform
significantly worse at first (in JSON, anyway, since HTML is already
mostly cached), so it might be worth briefly warming the cache after
pushing.
That is, once we get our list of IDs from the search engine, only
fetch records whose JSON we don't already have cached.
It's simpler here to use as_json, but it'd probably be even faster
if I figure out how to serve a plain JSON string from a Rails
controller. In the meantime, requests of entirely cached items
are coming in at about 85ms on average on my box (dev, cache
classes, many items), about 10ms better than the last
iteration.
Bug report that this resolves:
...However, when I was using the "Import from SDB" tool just a few
minutes ago, it ended up adding EVERY neocash item into the "Not
In A List" section, regardless if I already that item imported
into my "Your Items". So, basically.. I had duplicates of
everything and it would not allow me to move them around into
separate catergories or anything. I know that every other time i've
used the import tool, it would only add NEW items that are not
currently already in my lists yet.
Confirmed features:
* Output (retrieval, sorting, etc.)
* Name (positive and negative, but new behavior)
* Flags (positive and negative)
Planned features:
* users:owns, user:wants
Known issues:
* Sets are broken
* Don't render properly
* Shouldn't actually be done as joined sets, anyway, since
we actually want (set1_zone1 OR set1_zone2) AND
(set2_zone1 OR set2_zone2), which will require breaking
it into multiple terms queries.
* Name has regressed: ignores phrases, doesn't require *all*
words. While we're breaking sets into multiple queries,
maybe we'll do something similar for name. In fact, we
really kinda have to if we're gonna keep sorting by name,
since "straw hat" returns all hats. Eww.
