Summary:
- Use a sub-select query with much better performance to display the thread list
- Perform analyze on tables after launch
The new query is:
```
SELECT `Thread`.`data` FROM `Thread` WHERE `Thread`.`id` IN (SELECT `id` FROM `ThreadCategory` AS `M26` WHERE `M26`.`value` IN ('9m9ks71k06n5rmx82kgues09p','9s9k25q6j1krjgpkovbcjm7d','13b7ufruoymvih07ki0uahlto','dtmhlzz6phr47zp512knhjgf8','16dvjb84bszfh15kgfrjj37i3','aclwmgncdqjfibp51bvgbeik','17qad7jhbp6tozog3klm5zagt','4x4bkbawiq825u4eu3aus8tll','7axr9f5f1lzpwm2rw2ghkirhq','dsnn660af0pmou2gg3nstga8a','361qr5rva1ieby2r0ec3sn0bm','10fyvba7pjyjgeyr5i65i1zri') AND `M26`.`in_all_mail` = 1 ORDER BY `M26`.`last_message_received_timestamp` DESC LIMIT 200 OFFSET 0) ORDER BY `Thread`.`last_message_received_timestamp` DESC;
`
0|0|0|SEARCH TABLE Thread USING INDEX Thread_id (id=?)
0|0|0|EXECUTE LIST SUBQUERY 1
1|0|0|SCAN TABLE Thread-Category AS M26 USING COVERING INDEX ThreadFancyIndex
1|0|0|EXECUTE LIST SUBQUERY 2
0|0|0|USE TEMP B-TREE FOR (only on 200 result items)
```
Which is twice as performant as:
```
SELECT `Thread`.`data` FROM `Thread` INNER JOIN `ThreadCategory` AS `M26` ON `M26`.`id` = `Thread`.`id` WHERE `M26`.`value` IN ('9m9ks71k06n5rmx82kgues09p','9s9k25q6j1krjgpkovbcjm7d','13b7ufruoymvih07ki0uahlto','dtmhlzz6phr47zp512knhjgf8','16dvjb84bszfh15kgfrjj37i3','aclwmgncdqjfibp51bvgbeik','17qad7jhbp6tozog3klm5zagt','4x4bkbawiq825u4eu3aus8tll','7axr9f5f1lzpwm2rw2ghkirhq','361qr5rva1ieby2r0ec3sn0bm','10fyvba7pjyjgeyr5i65i1zri') AND `M26`.`in_all_mail` = 1 ORDER BY `M26`.`last_message_received_timestamp` DESC LIMIT 200 OFFSET 0;
0|0|1|SCAN TABLE Thread-Category AS M26 USING COVERING INDEX ThreadFancyIndex
0|0|0|EXECUTE LIST SUBQUERY 1
0|1|0|SEARCH TABLE Thread USING INDEX Thread_id (id=?)
```
Test Plan: Broken!
Reviewers: evan, juan
Reviewed By: juan
Differential Revision: https://phab.nylas.com/D2869
Summary:
Until now, we've been hiding transactions beneath the surface. When you call persistModel, you're implicitly creating a transaction.
You could explicitly create them with `atomically`..., but there were several critical problems that are fixed in this diff:
- Calling persistModel / unpersistModel within a transaction could cause the DatabaseStore to trigger. This could result in other parts of the app making queries /during/
the transaction, potentially before the COMMIT occurred and saved the changes. The new, explicit inTransaction syntax holds all changes until after COMMIT and then triggers.
- Calling atomically and then calling persistModel inside that resulted in us having to check whether a transaction was present and was gross.
- Many parts of the code ran extensive logic inside a promise chained within `atomically`:
BAD:
```
DatabaseStore.atomically =>
DatabaseStore.persistModel(draft) =>
GoMakeANetworkRequestThatReturnsAPromise
```
OVERWHELMINGLY BETTER:
```
DatabaseStore.inTransaction (t) =>
t.persistModel(draft)
.then =>
GoMakeANetworkRequestThatReturnsAPromise
```
Having explicit transactions also puts us on equal footing with Sequelize and other ORMs. Note that you /have/ to call DatabaseStore.inTransaction (t) =>. There is no other way to access the methods that let you alter the database. :-)
Other changes:
- This diff removes Message.labels and the Message-Labels table. We weren't using Message-level labels anywhere, and the table could grow very large.
- This diff changes the page size during initial sync from 250 => 200 in an effort to make transactions a bit faster.
Test Plan: Run tests!
Reviewers: juan, evan
Reviewed By: juan, evan
Differential Revision: https://phab.nylas.com/D2353
