e61d37171e
- Add a new guideline regarding the file location of background migrations - Add a new section about execution timing guidelines for all different kinds of migrations
134 lines
6.9 KiB
Markdown
134 lines
6.9 KiB
Markdown
# Database Review Guidelines
|
||
|
||
This page is specific to database reviews. Please refer to our
|
||
[code review guide](code_review.md) for broader advice and best
|
||
practices for code review in general.
|
||
|
||
## General process
|
||
|
||
A database review is required for:
|
||
|
||
- Changes that touch the database schema or perform data migrations,
|
||
including files in:
|
||
- `db/`
|
||
- `lib/gitlab/background_migration/`
|
||
- Changes to the database tooling, e.g.:
|
||
- migration or ActiveRecord helpers in `lib/gitlab/database/`
|
||
- load balancing
|
||
- Changes that produce SQL queries that are beyond the obvious. It is
|
||
generally up to the author of a merge request to decide whether or
|
||
not complex queries are being introduced and if they require a
|
||
database review.
|
||
|
||
A database reviewer is expected to look out for obviously complex
|
||
queries in the change and review those closer. If the author does not
|
||
point out specific queries for review and there are no obviously
|
||
complex queries, it is enough to concentrate on reviewing the
|
||
migration only.
|
||
|
||
It is preferable to review queries in SQL form and generally accepted
|
||
to ask the author to translate any ActiveRecord queries in SQL form
|
||
for review.
|
||
|
||
### Roles and process
|
||
|
||
A Merge Request author's role is to:
|
||
|
||
- Decide whether a database review is needed.
|
||
- If database review is needed, add the ~database label.
|
||
- Use the [database changes](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/.gitlab/merge_request_templates/Database%20changes.md)
|
||
merge request template, or include the appropriate items in the MR description.
|
||
|
||
A database **reviewer**'s role is to:
|
||
|
||
- Perform a first-pass review on the MR and suggest improvements to the author.
|
||
- Once satisfied, relabel the MR with ~"database::reviewed", approve it, and
|
||
reassign MR to the database **maintainer** suggested by Reviewer
|
||
Roulette.
|
||
|
||
A database **maintainer**'s role is to:
|
||
|
||
- Perform the final database review on the MR.
|
||
- Discuss further improvements or other relevant changes with the
|
||
database reviewer and the MR author.
|
||
- Finally approve the MR and relabel the MR with ~"database::approved"
|
||
- Merge the MR if no other approvals are pending or pass it on to
|
||
other maintainers as required (frontend, backend, docs).
|
||
|
||
### Distributing review workload
|
||
|
||
Review workload is distributed using [reviewer roulette](code_review.md#reviewer-roulette)
|
||
([example](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/merge_requests/25181#note_147551725)).
|
||
The MR author should then co-assign the suggested database
|
||
**reviewer**. When they give their sign-off, they will hand over to
|
||
the suggested database **maintainer**.
|
||
|
||
If reviewer roulette didn't suggest a database reviewer & maintainer,
|
||
make sure you have applied the ~database label and rerun the
|
||
`danger-review` CI job, or pick someone from the
|
||
[`@gl-database` team](https://gitlab.com/groups/gl-database/-/group_members).
|
||
|
||
### How to prepare for speedy database reviews
|
||
|
||
In order to make reviewing easier and therefore faster, please consider preparing a comment
|
||
and details for a database reviewer:
|
||
|
||
- Provide queries in SQL form rather than ActiveRecord.
|
||
- Format any queries with a SQL query formatter, for example with [sqlformat.darold.net](http://sqlformat.darold.net).
|
||
- Consider providing query plans via a link to [explain.depesz.com](https://explain.depesz.com) or another tool instead of textual form.
|
||
- For query changes, it is best to provide the SQL query along with a plan *before* and *after* the change. This helps to spot differences quickly.
|
||
- When providing query plans, make sure to use good parameter values, so that the query executed is a good example and also hits enough data. Usually, the `gitlab-org` namespace (`namespace_id = 9970`) and the `gitlab-org/gitlab-ce` project (`project_id = 13083`) provides enough data to serve as a good example.
|
||
|
||
### How to review for database
|
||
|
||
- Check migrations
|
||
- Review relational modeling and design choices
|
||
- Review migrations follow [database migration style guide](migration_style_guide.md),
|
||
for example
|
||
- [Check ordering of columns](ordering_table_columns.md)
|
||
- [Check indexes are present for foreign keys](migration_style_guide.md#adding-foreign-key-constraints)
|
||
- Ensure that migrations execute in a transaction or only contain
|
||
concurrent index/foreign key helpers (with transactions disabled)
|
||
- Check consistency with `db/schema.rb` and that migrations are [reversible](migration_style_guide.md#reversibility)
|
||
- Check queries timing (If any): Queries executed in a migration
|
||
need to fit comfortable within `15s` - preferably much less than that - on GitLab.com.
|
||
- Check [background migrations](background_migrations.md):
|
||
- For data migrations, establish a time estimate for execution
|
||
- They should only be used when migrating data in larger tables.
|
||
- If a single `update` is below than `1s` the query can be placed
|
||
directly in a regular migration (inside `db/migrate`).
|
||
- Review queries (for example, make sure batch sizes are fine)
|
||
- Establish a time estimate for execution
|
||
- Because execution time can be longer than for a regular migration,
|
||
it's suggested to treat background migrations as post migrations:
|
||
place them in `db/post_migrate` instead of `db/migrate`. Keep in mind
|
||
that post migrations are executed post-deployment in production.
|
||
- Check [timing guidelines for migrations](#timing-guidelines-for-migrations)
|
||
- Query performance
|
||
- Check for any obviously complex queries and queries the author specifically
|
||
points out for review (if any)
|
||
- If not present yet, ask the author to provide SQL queries and query plans
|
||
(e.g. by using [chatops](understanding_explain_plans.md#chatops) or direct
|
||
database access)
|
||
- For given queries, review parameters regarding data distribution
|
||
- [Check query plans](understanding_explain_plans.md) and suggest improvements
|
||
to queries (changing the query, schema or adding indexes and similar)
|
||
- General guideline is for queries to come in below 100ms execution time
|
||
- If queries rely on prior migrations that are not present yet on production
|
||
(eg indexes, columns), you can use a [one-off instance from the restore
|
||
pipeline](https://ops.gitlab.net/gitlab-com/gl-infra/gitlab-restore/postgres-gprd)
|
||
in order to establish a proper testing environment.
|
||
|
||
### Timing guidelines for migrations
|
||
|
||
In general, migrations for a single deploy shouldn't take longer than
|
||
1 hour for GitLab.com. The following guidelines are not hard rules, they were
|
||
estimated to keep migration timing to a minimum.
|
||
|
||
NOTE: **Note:** Keep in mind that all runtimes should be measured against GitLab.com.
|
||
|
||
| Migration Type | Execution Time Recommended | Notes |
|
||
|----|----|---|
|
||
| Regular migrations on `db/migrate` | `3 minutes` | A valid exception are index creation as this can take a long time. |
|
||
| Post migrations on `db/post_migrate` | `10 minutes` | |
|
||
| Background migrations | --- | Since these are suitable for larger tables, it's not possible to set a precise timing guideline, however, any query must stay well below `10s` of execution time. |
|