[camd]

Bug 2041948

generate_new_alerts_in_series and generate_new_test_alerts_in_series run on every signature during ingestion. This PR addresses their PerformanceDatum / PerformanceDatumReplicate reads:

• The series query filtered only on signature + push_timestamp, so Postgres could not seek the composite (repository, signature, push_timestamp) index (its leading column, repository, was unconstrained). Add repository=signature.repository; a signature has exactly one repository, so results are unchanged.

• Trimmed over-fetching on the series query with .only("id", "push_id", "push_timestamp", "value") -- the consuming loop only reads those 4 attributes, so this drops the SELECT from 10 columns to 4 (including three unused VARCHARs).

• Removed a dead .select_related("summary__push__time") on the latest-alert query. Django silently ignores select_related when .values_list() is chained, so it produced identical SQL -- misleading dead code.

• De-duplicated the two near-identical functions into a shared _load_revision_data() + _collect_replicates_map().

series query impact (the headline win)

This is currently the #1 query by total load in prod Cloud SQL Query Insights -- not because any single call is slow (~30 ms avg), but because it is called ~8,858×/hour (once per signature on ingestion). Total load ≈ avg_exec_time × times_called, so cutting per-call cost cuts the dominant load proportionally.

Without repository=, Postgres uses the signature_id-only index and reads the signature's entire history, discarding everything outside the 2-week window. Adding repository= switches it to the composite index, which range-seeks straight to the window. Measured on the staging replica (sig 5182079, repo 77: 9,462 rows all-time, 1,788 in the 2-week window):

	before (10 cols, signature_id index)	after (4 cols, composite index)
index	performance_datum_signature_id_a9af3d6b	performance_reposit_c9d328_idx (repo, sig, push_timestamp)
rows discarded by filter	7,674 (scans all history)	0 (range-seek to window)
buffers	9,490	1,755 (~5.4× fewer)
row width	64	28 (.only())
exec time	15.4 ms	3.6 ms (~4.3× faster)

The gain scales with how much history a signature has beyond the alert window, so the worst offenders (which drive the prod average up) benefit most.

Note on the replicate lookup shape

An earlier revision of this PR replaced the replicate lookup's IN (SELECT ... WHERE EXISTS (...)) with a plain join, on the assumption the EXISTS was redundant. It is logically redundant but load-bearing for the query planner, as @junngo flagged in review. Measured on the staging replica (autoland, sig 5182079, ~2.4k datums, ~118k replicate rows over the 2-week window):

shape	plan	time
plain INNER JOIN	Parallel Seq Scan on performance_datum	~22.2 s
IN(Subquery(datum_ids)), no EXISTS	same seq-scan plan	~65.2 s
materialized literal IN (...)	Parallel Seq Scan on performance_datum_replicate	>120 s
original IN(Subquery(... EXISTS ...))	full index path	~5.4 s cold / ~53 ms warm

The original shape resolves the small datum-id set via the composite index first, then probes performance_datum_replicate by its FK index, instead of letting the planner full-scan a giant table. It has been kept as-is (reverted to the original form); only the other optimizations above are new.

Includes a characterization test pinning the replicate-map behavior.

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 69.32%. Comparing base (5acee2d) to head (d056385).

❗ There is a different number of reports uploaded between BASE (5acee2d) and HEAD (d056385). Click for more details.

HEAD has 1 upload less than BASE

Flag	BASE (5acee2d)	HEAD (d056385)
	5	4

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #9550       +/-   ##
===========================================
- Coverage   82.98%   69.32%   -13.66%     
===========================================
  Files         670      666        -4     
  Lines       40875    40785       -90     
  Branches     3918     3933       +15     
===========================================
- Hits        33920    28276     -5644     
- Misses       6479    12033     +5554     
  Partials      476      476               

☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[junngo]

At that time, we spent quite a bit of effort tuning the datum replicate query shape.
The Subquery and Exists conditions may look logically redundant, but they helped the DB optimizer choose the intended index path for PerformanceDatumReplicate.
I’m happy to hear any ideas for improving it further, and I’ll also try to double-check whether there’s a better query shape here.

[junngo]

I’m concerned this may introduce a query plan regression.
This query [0] takes over 2 minutes per call in Redash. From the query plan [1], performance_datum uses the intended index quickly, but performance_datum_replicate still performs a full scan.

[0]
SELECT
    pdr.performance_datum_id,
    pdr.value
FROM
    performance_datum_replicate pdr
INNER JOIN
    performance_datum pd
    ON pdr.performance_datum_id = pd.id
WHERE pd.push_timestamp >= '2026-05-11'
and pd.repository_id = 77
and pd.signature_id = 5763463

[1]
Execution Time: 138,480 ms ≈ 2m 18s
Gather
└─ Hash Join
   Join: pdr.performance_datum_id = pd.id
   ├─ Outer: Parallel Seq Scan on performance_datum_replicate pdr
   │  ├─ ....
   │  ├─ Total scanned: ~1.36 billion rows
   │
   └─ Inner: Hash
      └─ Index Scan on performance_datum pd
         ├─ Index: performance_reposit_c9d328_idx
         ├─ Cond:
         │  repository_id = 77
         │  signature_id = 5763463
         │  push_timestamp >= 2026-05-11
         ├─ Actual rows: 55,900
         └─ Actual time: ~49ms

[camd]

@junngo : Thank you so much for this information! I did a re-analysis and you're totally right. You did some deep, and truly excellent work to get this query optimized! Thanks for bearing with me on this!

[junngo]

The original query takes about 100 ms per call, which looks reasonable to me.

Execution Time: 107 ms
Nested Loop
├─ Outer: Aggregate / Gather
│  └─ Nested Loop Semi
│     ├─ Bitmap Heap Scan on performance_datum
│     │  ├─ Index: performance_reposit_c9d328_idx
│     │  ├─ Actual rows: ~55,494 total
│     │  └─ Uses repository/signature/push_timestamp condition
│     │
│     └─ Index Only Scan on performance_datum_replicate u0
│        ├─ Index: performance_datum_replicate_performance_datum_id_fe2ed518
│        ├─ Cond: performance_datum_id = v0.id
│        ├─ Loops: 55,494
│        └─ Heap Fetches: 0
│
└─ Inner: Index Scan on performance_datum_replicate
   └─ Not executed because no matching datum ids with replicates

[camd]

@junngo Thanks for bearing with me on this. Would you take a look at the changes I've made to the PR now?

I did some exploring and there may still be room for tuning this query. Since it's the one called most / second, even a small gain will have a good impact. I had Claude make a description below:

These are the exact SQL statements Django generates, before vs after, for the two changed queries. Drop in your own repository_id / signature_id / push_timestamp and run each under EXPLAIN (ANALYZE, BUFFERS) to compare plans. (Values below are placeholders; e.g. your earlier prod sample was repository_id = 77, signature_id = 5763463, push_timestamp >= '2026-05-11'.)

1. series query

Before — filters on signature_id + push_timestamp only, selects all 10 columns. Postgres can't seek the composite index (leading repository_id unconstrained), so it uses the signature_id-only index and scans the signature's full history, discarding everything outside the window:

EXPLAIN (ANALYZE, BUFFERS)
SELECT "performance_datum"."id", "performance_datum"."repository_id",
       "performance_datum"."signature_id", "performance_datum"."value",
       "performance_datum"."push_timestamp", "performance_datum"."application_version",
       "performance_datum"."job_id", "performance_datum"."push_id",
       "performance_datum"."os_name", "performance_datum"."platform_version"
FROM "performance_datum"
WHERE "performance_datum"."signature_id" = <signature_id>
  AND "performance_datum"."push_timestamp" >= '<push_timestamp>';

After — adds repository_id (a signature has exactly one repository, so results are identical) and trims to the 4 columns the loop actually reads. Now it range-seeks the composite (repository_id, signature_id, push_timestamp) index:

EXPLAIN (ANALYZE, BUFFERS)
SELECT "performance_datum"."id", "performance_datum"."push_id",
       "performance_datum"."push_timestamp", "performance_datum"."value"
FROM "performance_datum"
WHERE "performance_datum"."repository_id" = <repository_id>
  AND "performance_datum"."signature_id" = <signature_id>
  AND "performance_datum"."push_timestamp" >= '<push_timestamp>';

2. Replicate lookup

Plain join (briefly introduced in this PR, now reverted) — lets the planner full-scan a giant table:

EXPLAIN (ANALYZE, BUFFERS)
SELECT "performance_datum_replicate"."performance_datum_id", "performance_datum_replicate"."value"
FROM "performance_datum_replicate"
INNER JOIN "performance_datum"
  ON ("performance_datum_replicate"."performance_datum_id" = "performance_datum"."id")
WHERE "performance_datum"."push_timestamp" >= '<push_timestamp>'
  AND "performance_datum"."repository_id" = <repository_id>
  AND "performance_datum"."signature_id" = <signature_id>;

Restored original — the IN (SELECT … WHERE EXISTS (…)) shape you tuned. Resolves the small datum-id set via the composite index first, then probes performance_datum_replicate by its FK index:

EXPLAIN (ANALYZE, BUFFERS)
SELECT "performance_datum_replicate"."performance_datum_id", "performance_datum_replicate"."value"
FROM "performance_datum_replicate"
WHERE "performance_datum_replicate"."performance_datum_id" IN (
  SELECT V0."id"
  FROM "performance_datum" V0
  WHERE V0."push_timestamp" >= '<push_timestamp>'
    AND V0."repository_id" = <repository_id>
    AND V0."signature_id" = <signature_id>
    AND EXISTS (
      SELECT 1 AS "a"
      FROM "performance_datum_replicate" U0
      WHERE U0."performance_datum_id" = V0."id"
      LIMIT 1
    )
);

The current branch ships the "After" series query and the "Restored original" replicate lookup.

[junngo]

Sorry for the late review. Adding the repository condition to the PerformanceDatum query makes sense, and encapsulating the repeated logic improves reusability.
Looks good to me :)

[netlify]

✅ Deploy Preview for treeherder ready!

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	d056385
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/projects/treeherder/deploys/6ad79c1b43467b8505369681
😎 Deploy Preview	https://deploy-preview-9550--treeherder.netlify.app
📱 Preview on mobile	Toggle QR Code... Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.
🤖 Make changes	Run an agent on this branch

---

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify project configuration.

[junngo]

Sorry for the delay in approving it. I'll monitor it too after this patch lands.