You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
When deduplicating, for performance reasons (see #119 ), we are moving away from querying the HyP3 API for all jobs associated with a reference scene and instead:
querying the S3 bucket directly for published scenes, which encompasses SUCCEEDED jobs (shipped in Release v0.5.8 #184)
querying the hyp3-its-live dynamodb table directly using the status_code index for PENDING and RUNNING jobs (should always be a small number and performant)
With that strategy, we won't account for FAILED jobs, potentially submitting multiple requests for the same job. Generally, we don't see many "unlucky" jobs that experience intermittent failure for all three attempts, so this is likely to submit jobs that will always fail.
There's a significant number of failed jobs, even at a nominal failure rate of 0.5%, in the 544-day search window, so searching for FAILED jobs is probably not a good option from a performance standpoint.
Since we shouldn't receive the same message that many times, I don't see this causing a significant cost increase (though we'll want to check in on this assumption at some point), but feel it's worth documenting.
Going to leave this open and labeled
wontfixThis will not be worked on
as a reference
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
When deduplicating, for performance reasons (see #119 ), we are moving away from querying the HyP3 API for all jobs associated with a reference scene and instead:
status_code
index for PENDING and RUNNING jobs (should always be a small number and performant)With that strategy, we won't account for FAILED jobs, potentially submitting multiple requests for the same job. Generally, we don't see many "unlucky" jobs that experience intermittent failure for all three attempts, so this is likely to submit jobs that will always fail.
There's a significant number of failed jobs, even at a nominal failure rate of 0.5%, in the 544-day search window, so searching for FAILED jobs is probably not a good option from a performance standpoint.
Since we shouldn't receive the same message that many times, I don't see this causing a significant cost increase (though we'll want to check in on this assumption at some point), but feel it's worth documenting.
Going to leave this open and labeled wontfixThis will not be worked on
as a reference
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: