Use get or create to reduce the number of objects created

[singh1114]

Fixes #40

Signed-off-by: Ranvir Singh [email protected]

[haikoschol]

@singh1114 #40 says "use update_or_create" but in this PR you use get_or_create. Can you explain why? Even better would be if you can edit #40 to explain what the problem is that using either of these QuerySet methods is meant to solve. (nevermind, that is already explained by the comment by @pombredanne)

[pombredanne]

@singh1114 Thank you for this!
do you mind to rebase your PR? I merged first @haikoschol 's and there is a merge conflict now.

[pombredanne]

This is looking good otherwise, though do you think there could be a unit test that would show that there were issues with a bare create before?

[singh1114]

@pombredanne Did that!

[singh1114]

This is looking good otherwise, though do you think there could be a unit test that would show that there were issues with a bare create before?

I think we already had tests which specified the number of objects being created. Reducing the count in the tests itself will account for the same thing.

[haikoschol]

@singh1114 I still don't see how this PR fixes #40. Did you mean to reference #28, which is about duplicate data?

Either way, I think the import process needs to be redesigned (and called "import" instead of "data dump", but let's not bikeshed about that just now :). Apart from issues #28 and #40, the current process is also not scalable, already way too slow, and it will only get worse by using either get_or_create or create_or_update.

We should distinguish between importing historical data once, when an instance of vulnerablecode is provisioned, and continuously importing updates from vulnerability sources. Otherwise the time for the latter process will continue to grow with the amount of data.

[singh1114]

@haikoschol Sorry meant to refer #28 for the duplicate data. #40 doesn't seem to be correct and is a duplicate to #28

Agreed with your view of differentiating both the procedures.

For improving the speed of the dump, we can use bulk_create (and it would be good to call it dump if we use that but handling duplicates in that case will be more difficult).

Anyway, we will have to make sure the data in the DB is unique.

[haikoschol]

@singh1114 I agree that we should use bulk_create, at least for the initial import, but probably for updates as well.

However, I don't think that #40 is a duplicate of #28. I suggest we continue the discussion what #40 is about directly on the issue instead of this PR.

[pombredanne]

At this stage and based on the discussions here and the changes that were applied, I think it is best to close and continue the discussion in #40