We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.
To see all available qualifiers, see our documentation.
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
In sul-requests we run this query and it takes about 30 seconds in the folio-dev environment:
query InstanceByHrid { instances(hrid: "L284") { id title identifiers { value identifierTypeObject { name } } instanceType { name } contributors { name primary } publication { dateOfPublication } electronicAccess { materialsSpecification uri } items { barcode status { name } dueDate materialType { id name } chronology enumeration effectiveCallNumberComponents { callNumber } notes { note itemNoteType { name } } effectiveLocation { id campusId libraryId institutionId code discoveryDisplayName name servicePoints { id code pickupLocation } library { id code } campus { id code } details { pageAeonSite pageMediationGroupKey pageServicePoints { id code name } scanServicePointCode availabilityClass } } permanentLocation { id code details { pagingSchedule } } permanentLoanTypeId temporaryLoanTypeId holdingsRecord { effectiveLocation { code } } } } }
Which parts are particularly slow? Is there any way to optimize?
This was originally part of sul-dlss/sul-requests#1676
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
It's dueDate that's taking about 15s holdingRecords are good for another 4s. effectiveLocation is another 5s. permanentLocation is another 3s.
dueDate
holdingRecords
effectiveLocation
permanentLocation
Sorry, something went wrong.
No branches or pull requests
In sul-requests we run this query and it takes about 30 seconds in the folio-dev environment:
Which parts are particularly slow? Is there any way to optimize?
This was originally part of sul-dlss/sul-requests#1676
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: