Add an index to the timestamp column #364
Conversation
CHANGELOG.md
Outdated
| @@ -1,10 +1,13 @@ | |||
| # Changes | |||
|
|
|||
| #### Improvements | |||
|
|
|||
| - index added to the timestamp column | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This introduced a new schema for the database. I think it should be specified.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can you clarify what you mean when you ask for the new schema to be specified?
To my understanding, that is what I am saying here: I have added an index to the timestamp column.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe a more explicit sentence could be great, something like: "feat(models): index added to LogEntry.timestamp".
I like to see which part of the library is modified when I read changelogs.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
gotcha, how about now?
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #364 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 86.95% 87.04% +0.09%
==========================================
Files 22 23 +1
Lines 575 579 +4
==========================================
+ Hits 500 504 +4
Misses 75 75
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
Many queries, including the default ordering, for the LogEntry model rely on the timestamp field. Adding an index will ensure reasonable scalability for large audit logs.
|
@hramezani, this pull request seems to cause a new RuntimeWarning in the tests. Do you have an idea why? ..../django-auditlog/.tox/py37-django32/lib/python3.7/site-packages/django/db/models/fields/__init__.py:1361: RuntimeWarning: DateTimeField LogEntry.timestamp received a naive datetime (2000-01-01 00:00:00) while time zone support is active. |
|
@alieh-rymasheuski Actually, it is because of 128555f I've prepared a PR to fix the warning. |
Many queries, including the default ordering, for the LogEntry
model rely on the timestamp field. Adding an index will ensure
reasonable scalability for large audit logs.