Testing instructions need writing. And performance results need posting.

Given the interaction with other issues in the EPIC, the test order is more difficult.

The current implementation does not use MUC, as at 10M calls, the overhead of the external cache is huge.

I have implemented both, but I've not collected the results together. And MDL-40538 needs to land for MUCH static cache to be useful.

If required, I will implement an MUC version and compare.

This is not a static class, so I've not bothered with the MUC version.

Using the two attached runs, import them and then run

moodle/admin/tool/profiling/index.php?run1=89104786ee7a93d605b1b82c84424893&run2=5cf6414e40e769a72c73e0754e7455b9

to see your results.

                                                    Diff        Diff%

Number of Function Calls   43,762,907   22,591,226  -21,171,681 -48.4%

Incl. Wall Time (microsec) 820,491,422  740,474,595 -80,016,827 -9.8%

Incl. CPU (microsecs)      384,832,051  302,914,930 -81,917,121 -21.3%

Incl. MemUse (bytes)       89,776,112   90,093,728  317,616 	0.4%

Incl. PeakMemUse (bytes)   119,346,240  119,294,080 -52,160     -0.0%

300k RAM increase for 50% less function calls and 10% precheck load time. I'm sure a full restore will provide more savings.

Until I can upload the profiling results, it will be difficult to get this issue progressed through peer review.

This one is ready for peer review. I haven't yet attached the after profile due to the blocking SITES bug. When that's resolved, I'll upload the post profile for you to import and review.

1. You have to large chunks of code in grouped_parent_exists. I think that should be in a get_parent_path method.

2. When you throw away the 200 'oldest' cache entries, they are not the 200 least recently used. Presumably the overhead it re-ordering the array is worse than the risk of throwing away a cache entry that might still be used. I just wonder if it is worth clarifying the comment that you are throwing away the oldest by creation time, not use time?

If you like, I can peer-review this again after you have fixed 1., if you don't want to wait for Eloy.

Tim helpfully offered to Peer review, so I've moved the review to him.

After implementing his suggestion for another function. The following is the comparison of the new code to the original baseline.

+1 from me for that latest patch. Please submit for integration once you have decided how many branches to back-port this to.

I've back patched to 2.3 as it didn't cause any conflicts. I know 2.3 is not supported and I do not expect it to be integrated. However I will needs to integrate it to some 2.3 installations.

Tim, I don't have the power to submit something for integration. Can you please do that?

Final Peer review/request for a bump to integration review.

Submitting for integration.

Hi Russell,

There is trailing whitespace in your patch, do you want to fix it, or shall I?

Dan

I'm unavailable till this evening. I will fix if you can wait. Should I do a second commit, or rebase?

Ok thanks, i've added a commit for it (better to have it right in the original commit if it comes up again).

I've integrated this into master, 25 and 24 (23 is only in security support now)

Hi Russell,

I'm not sure how complex the file need to be to test this issue. Would it be possible to attach a sample backup file to test this?

It's my belief the backup attached to the linked EPIC is sufficient. However that is what I tested with. You are free to use that to verify.

Hi Russel,

I tested this on 2.3, 2.4, 2.5 and master. It restored without error, however it took quite sometimes to finish the restore (approx. 30 mins). I noticed that the file is restoring about 6334 questions from deleted categories. This might be caused of the delay.

Other than that, this is working find.

Just some side note, received notice error for format_grid. Installed the format_grid plugins, the error is gone.

Test passed.

The restore time is very slow. This work is all about improving restore performance. Restoring that backup without this fix has been taking me about 40 minutes. Sothat time is expected as is shown in the profile results above.

I forgot that format_grid is installed in the environment that backup comes from. Thanks for highlighting that.

Thanks again for another week of fixes, improvements and testing. These changes have been released to the world.

Cheers, Damyon

Russell: I just filed MDL-41674, you might be interested in peer reviewing that issue, as it seems to make this area of code significantly faster still - but it's entirely possible I may have misunderstood something... (Just spotted this along the way, it's not a particular focus of mine.)