From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:56821) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dr1sB-00029M-Km for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sun, 10 Sep 2017 09:02:04 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dr1sA-000714-Na for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sun, 10 Sep 2017 09:02:03 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:49872) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dr1sA-000710-KO for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sun, 10 Sep 2017 09:02:02 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1dr1sA-0006fN-Al for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sun, 10 Sep 2017 09:02:02 -0400 Subject: [bug#27876] [PATCH v2 1/3] cuirass: Store new information in database to prepare new HTTP API integration. Resent-Message-ID: From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) References: <20170730100759.17734-1-m.othacehe@gmail.com> <20170801195124.7030-1-m.othacehe@gmail.com> <87o9ql89lp.fsf@gnu.org> <87pob1m2bk.fsf@gmail.com> <871sngapjy.fsf@gnu.org> <87lglomhxo.fsf@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2017 15:01:27 +0200 In-Reply-To: <87lglomhxo.fsf@gmail.com> (Mathieu Othacehe's message of "Sat, 09 Sep 2017 09:48:15 +0200") Message-ID: <878thm907s.fsf@gnu.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-patches-bounces+kyle=kyleam.com@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-patches" To: Mathieu Othacehe Cc: 27876-done@debbugs.gnu.org Heya Mathieu, Mathieu Othacehe skribis: >> With an autoincremented index, I suppose we might want to make sure that >> =E2=80=98db-add-build=E2=80=99 does not add a new entry for a build that= =E2=80=99s already in >> the table. WDYT? > > Yes we might, but looking for a build with the same > derivation-evaluation-outputs before each build insertion will be an > expensive operation (now that this tuple is no longer the primary key). OK, but isn=E2=80=99t there a risk of recording the same set of derivations= at every evaluation? Basically, between two subsequent evaluations, 99% of the derivations are exactly the same (assuming an evaluation is triggered at each git push, and each git push adds/modifies just a handful of packages). If we record new builds for these 99%, even though nothing has changed, then that=E2=80=99s potentially bad, no? Thanks, Ludo=E2=80=99.