Looking at the historical data, fewer than 50% of active users have
completed the checklist, which means that it is just persistent
clutter. We also have other better ways of encouraging people to send
traffic and get the apps now.
This commit removes both the frontend UI and backend work but leaves
the db row for now for the historical data.
(imported from commit e8f5780be37bbc75f794fb118e4dd41d8811f2bf)
This has a small bug where we don't actually filter the message out of
the home view; fixing that requires adding an index on the "flags"
field of UserMessage.
(imported from commit 492c99d0a8e87b253e577be6564bec12099bd8e9)
The gather_subscriptions_helper() does a separate query to
get emails from user_ids, and it returns an email_dict to its
caller.
This may seem like a step backward, since gather_subscriptions()
now needs to do an additional query, but there is some benefit
in passing fewer redundant emails over the wire from the DB.
The real payoff, though, will come in subsequent commits, where
we will reduce the amount of data going over the wire to the browser,
which will benefit users with slow connections.
(imported from commit bf1cc5828a4c5f68cafd052ea29a177837970206)
clear_followup_emails_queue now filters by from_email too
send_local_email_template_with_delay passes the template_payload into the subject template
(imported from commit 8044fe2ebad90a9d6d5c67cdfdd08801760fd7f7)
The current version should only be used for testing; for example,
if you want to create a bunch of streams for stress testing, you
can run this in a loop.
(imported from commit ec51a431fb9679fc18379e4c6ecdba66bc75a395)
It makes the event queue return all messages on public streams, rather
than only the user's subscriptions. It's meant for use with chat bots.
(imported from commit 12d7e9e9586369efa7e7ff9eb060f25360327f71)
I added filter() statements to do_update_message_flags().
Here is some context:
Steve Howell: Case 1, have AND clause to reduce work for DB.
humbug=> update zerver_usermessage set flags = (flags & ~1) where id > 9000;
UPDATE 382
humbug=> select count(*) from zerver_usermessage where (flags & 1) = 0;
count
-------
382
(1 row)
humbug=> explain analyze update zerver_usermessage set flags = (flags | 1) where (flags & 1) = 0;
QUERY PLAN
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Update on zerver_usermessage (cost=0.00..266.85 rows=47 width=27) (actual time=5.727..5.727 rows=0 loops=1)
-> Seq Scan on zerver_usermessage (cost=0.00..266.85 rows=47 width=27) (actual time=0.045..2.751 rows=382 loops=1)
Filter: ((flags & 1::bigint) = 0)
Rows Removed by Filter: 9000
Total runtime: 5.759 ms
(5 rows)
humbug=> select count(*) from zerver_usermessage where (flags & 1) = 0;
count
-------
0
(1 row)
Leo Franchi: Sounds reasonable, but I know way less than zev about DBs so I'll defer to his judgement :)
Steve Howell: Case 2, how the code works now:
humbug=> update zerver_usermessage set flags = (flags & ~1) where id > 9000;
UPDATE 382
humbug=> select count(*) from zerver_usermessage where (flags & 1) = 0;
count
-------
382
(1 row)
humbug=> explain analyze update zerver_usermessage set flags = (flags | 1);
QUERY PLAN
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Update on zerver_usermessage (cost=0.00..243.28 rows=9382 width=27) (actual time=362.075..362.075 rows=0 loops=1)
-> Seq Scan on zerver_usermessage (cost=0.00..243.28 rows=9382 width=27) (actual time=0.008..6.138 rows=9382 loops=1)
Total runtime: 362.105 ms
(3 rows)
humbug=> select count(*) from zerver_usermessage where (flags & 1) = 0;
count
-------
0
(1 row)
Steve Howell: In both trials, we set it up so that only 382 of 9382 rows need to be updated. The first trial runs about 63x as fast. The second trial, if my theory is correct, is doing 24x as many writes as it needs. Both trials are reading all 9382 rows.
Steve Howell: The expense of the update statement seems to be proportional to the number of rows you "update", not the number of rows that you actually change.
Steve Howell: For now I created #1869.
Zev Benjamin: That sounds like a reasonable explanation. The disk IO can be expensive
(imported from commit d9090daee1f81cad76c430de0956f9bd504da075)
Handled by the queue processor for signups. Added a management command
that accomplishes the same task, in case it's needed for manually added users,
or in case we goof and need to remove queued emails for a given user.
This addresses Trac #1807
(imported from commit 6727b82a07fa6a3ea3d827860c9e60fd0602297a)
This will hopefully incentivize people to click one and get back into
the app.
We'll also need this for digest emails.
(imported from commit 57191c3fcca3b12df93a81e4692bb7eb8ccc83b2)
The realm should always be the realm of the stream, and we should
always pass in a stream rather than sometimes passing in a stream name
and other times passing in a stream.
(imported from commit a098d6ed3db218a37c1b6b7c956e847c316c2d13)
We have been persisting muting preferences on the back end for
a while, but we haven't been adding them to page_params for the
client to have at reload/startup time.
(imported from commit d9ca68aa0e4d22bfb0e6ce67fc0bc63981175c8b)
We now bulk-fetch subscription information once from the database
and use it throughout bulk_add_subscriptions in order to avoid
hitting the db O(streams) times.
On my machine this shaved the accounts_register API call from making
66 queries to making 37 queries.
(imported from commit 5dd5ad3f50b2a6edf85b5f1d55ebd697a1c60647)
When we send a message, we send some presence information to Tornado
to help it figure out how to generate emails for idle recipients of
a message. This change limits the presence info to being the
intersection of present users and recipients of the message. It is
just an internal optimization to avoid queueing up unneeded data.
The history behind this feature is that I implemented it a while
back, but I think I made a rebase mistake that sent all the presence
data over the wire, despite having code to filter on recipients.
It was mostly harmless, just leading to some inefficiency which is
now fixed.
(imported from commit 7c8e97705afb299c67b99053909e952fbc823551)
For a 4-person stream, we were hitting the DB 8 times, and 4 of
those queries were to lazily get user.email for the 4 recipients
due to upstream code using only(). I added user_profile__email
to the only() call.
I believe this regression started 9/18, and after pushing this
to prod, we would should look at this graph:
https://stats1.zulip.net/graphs/8274cd84588
(imported from commit 70629cb69fe5955c674ba76482609dfe78e5faaf)
Tim Abbott
Leo Franchi
Jessica McKellar
Luke Faraone
Tim Abbott
Steve Howell
Kevin Mehall
acrefoot
Zev Benjamin