In #21 I quickly hacked in a storage level cache to help troubleshoot, commit 81f76ed59ee275e5e5385fa8619e6ae561735b69
It can't be left in place in it's current state: it does have any kind of expiry mechanism, so files that have failed revalidation would still be accessible.
Need to decide whether to
Activity
30-Dec-23 18:02
assigned to @btasker
30-Dec-23 18:09
The cache can give a fairly significant performance improvement - taking a 2s search down to a few tenths of a second. But, of course, that is based on running the same search twice in quick succession - in practice, it's likely to be less beneficial.
I think the answer is: at some point we'll probably want a cache, but I don't currently want to spend the time on it - I'll put a ticket onto backlog to explore it.
30-Dec-23 18:11
mentioned in commit 17dc40200b71275c46f667d473bcf68e7ae14a1a
Commit: 17dc40200b71275c46f667d473bcf68e7ae14a1a Author: B Tasker Date: 2023-12-30T18:11:14.000+00:00Message
chore: remove caching logic (utilities/file_location_listing#22)
30-Dec-23 18:12
mentioned in issue #23
30-Dec-23 18:12
Caching has been removed from the current codebase and I've raised #23 to revisit later.
Closing as Won't Fix