Ash query with 1 filter performs worse than the same Ecto query
We've noticed quite bad performance when querying data produced by paper_trail using Ash. The same kind of queries made with regular Ecto.Query perform much better.
The tables involved are huge (it's paper trail after all), but the column by which we filter is indexed.
Upon examining the difference between the produced queries, the only difference I see is in the WHERE clause:
Ash:
Ecto:
The
Why is this casting produced in the Ash version of the query necessary? Is it something that can be avoided by better definitions and or configuration?
The tables involved are huge (it's paper trail after all), but the column by which we filter is indexed.
Upon examining the difference between the produced queries, the only difference I see is in the WHERE clause:
Ash:
Ecto:
The
document_idVersionattributes_as_attributes([:document_id])paper_trailWhy is this casting produced in the Ash version of the query necessary? Is it something that can be avoided by better definitions and or configuration?
The Elixir backend framework for unparalleled productivity. Declarative tools that let you stop wasting time. Use with Phoenix LiveView or build APIs in minutes for your front-end of choice.
2,193Members
Resources
Similar Threads
Was this page helpful?
