mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-11 05:11:49 +01:00
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
347d85fef3
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - GitHub chat endpoints let agents review pull requests. The server reads review state when it lists issues and when it updates GitHub checks. > - On a hosted instance, two GitHub review queries used the most total database time. One query ran about 660,000 times at about 33 ms. The other query ran about 10,000 times at about 1 s. > - The first query finds a source comment's chat link. No index covers `chat_message_links.comment_id`, so each call reads the full table. Issue lists also read the same review waits two times per request. > - The second query joins deliveries, links and runs on a JSON key. The planner walks the agent's run history in creation order and reads each run's context. > - This pull request adds four concurrent indexes, splits the run lookup into two small reads, and shares review-wait reads in one issue-list request. > - The benefit is less background database load, so request reads wait less. The results stay the same. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** GitHub review state reads. These are the inherited review-wait lookup by source comment, and the review-check lookup of the run that a delivery's comment woke. **Subsystem affected** Server chat channels (GitHub review waits and checks), issue list attention maps, and the database schema. **Current behavior** - `readInheritedGitHubReviewWait` filters `chat_message_links` by `company_id`, `comment_id` and `direction`. No index has `comment_id`, so PostgreSQL reads the full table on each call. The run-origin check does the same lookup first. - An issue list calls the external review-wait read from the review attention map and again from the blocked-inbox attention map. The two maps read the same in-review issues. - `githubReviewCheckState` joins deliveries, links and runs with `context_snapshot->>'wakeCommentId' = comment_id::text`, sorts by `created_at desc` and takes one row. The planner reads the agent's runs in creation order and reads each run context. If no run matches yet, it reads all of them. The delivery filter on `normalized_event` and the link join on `delivery_id` also have no index. **Proposed behavior** The same rows come back from small index reads. Each issue's review wait is read one time per issue-list request. **Reason and benefit** These two statement families used about 33,000 s of database time in one cumulative statistics window. The database had about 50 concurrent active queries, and request reads waited behind this background work. **Breaking changes** None. The migration adds indexes only. ## What Changed - Migration `0456_chat_review_lookup_indexes` builds four indexes with `CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY IF NOT EXISTS`. It runs through the existing top-level statement path, which repairs an invalid index on retry: - `chat_message_links_company_comment_idx` on `(company_id, comment_id)` where `comment_id is not null`. - `chat_message_links_delivery_idx` on `(delivery_id)` where `delivery_id is not null`. - `chat_deliveries_github_automatic_delivery_idx` on `(endpoint_id, normalized_event->'githubAutomatic'->'context'->>'deliveryId')` where that value is not null. - `heartbeat_runs_company_wake_comment_idx` on `(company_id, context_snapshot->>'wakeCommentId')`. This index is not partial. The planner does not use expression statistics from a partial index. Without these statistics, it estimates many matches and keeps the creation-order walk. - `githubReviewCheckState` reads the delivery's comment IDs first. If there is a comment, it reads the newest same-agent run with one of these `wakeCommentId` values. If there is no comment, it skips the run read. The comparison stays text equality on `comment_id::text`. - `createExternalReviewWaitReader` shares one read per issue between the review and blocked-inbox attention maps of one issue-list request. The reader exists only for that request. - `doc/DATABASE.md` describes the indexes and the new read order. - `scripts/benchmark-review-lookup-indexes.ts` compares the pre-fix and new code with and without the indexes. `scripts/benchmark-review-lookup-index-migration.ts` times the migration on a large synthetic database. ## Verification Local SQL measurements on a synthetic fixture. They are not production timings. Environment: embedded PostgreSQL 18.1, baseline revision `02bfe71a6b`. Fixture: 50,000 links, 5,000 deliveries with about 2 KiB events, and 4,000 runs with about 12 KiB incompressible contexts. The wake run is in the middle of the run history. Each value is the median server execution time from `EXPLAIN ANALYZE` (2 warmups, 9 samples). The order was: no indexes, indexes, then no indexes again. | Caller and statement | Before (no indexes, two passes) | After | Shared buffers before → after | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Inherited review wait, link by source comment (same SQL) | 2.72 / 2.36 ms | 0.076 ms | 929 → 12 | | Review check, wake run found | 31.9 / 21.9 ms | 0.29 ms (two statements) | 25,776 → 62 | | Review check, no wake run yet | 71.0 / 47.5 ms | 0.06 ms (two statements) | 34,861 → 12 | - Indexes alone do not fix the review check. The old SQL with the new indexes took 8.6 ms (run found) and 29.7 ms (no run), because it still walked the run history. The new SQL without the new indexes was neutral (23.5 and 35.1 ms). - Service wall times on this shared machine were noisy, so the table reports server execution time. - Correctness: the benchmark fails unless the inherited statement returns the same positional rows in each index state. The check service result and the final wake-run rows of the new code must also match the pre-fix module for both cases. - Migration timing, normal migration runner, synthetic data: 200,000 runs (1.8 GB with 8 KiB incompressible contexts), 500,000 links and 100,000 deliveries. First run 4.2 s; rerun 0.38 s. Separate builds: links by comment 1.5 s, run wake comment 1.1 s, deliveries 0.7 s, links by delivery 0.3 s. All indexes were valid. The run index was 8.3 MB. - New tests: - `server/src/__tests__/github-review-check-state.test.ts` checks that the newest same-agent run is selected. It also checks that other agents, other companies, uppercase IDs, non-string values, list-only `wakeCommentIds`, comment-less links and unknown deliveries do not match. It checks that the generated statements can use the new indexes. - `server/src/services/native-runtime/external-review-wait.test.ts` checks that the reader reads each issue one time, keeps concurrent callers correct, and rejects all waiting callers when a read fails. - Red/green: with the pre-fix `review-check-state.ts`, the behavior test passes and the index test fails. With this change, both pass. - Focused runs pass: `issue-blocker-attention`, `heartbeat-issue-liveness-escalation`, review-wait, review-check-state, external-review-wait, review-repair (106 tests), and `external-chat-wait.integration` (285 tests). `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` and `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db check:migrations` pass. Commands: ```sh pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec tsx ../scripts/benchmark-review-lookup-indexes.ts --baseline-ref=02bfe71a6b pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec tsx ../scripts/benchmark-review-lookup-index-migration.ts ``` ## Risks - The migration builds four indexes concurrently. It does not block writes. On a large database, the run index reads every run context one time. The local run took 1.1 s for 1.8 GB from a warm cache. Cold storage on smaller compute can be slower. - The run index adds one entry for each run insert and for each run update that is not a heap-only update. Many runs have no `wakeCommentId`, so these entries hold a null key. - The review check now sends two statements instead of one when a delivery has a comment. Each statement reads only a few index entries. - When two matching runs have the same `created_at`, either can be selected. The previous query had the same tie behavior. - This change does not change the number of in-review issues that one issue list reads. The blocked-inbox map still reads all in-review issues of the company. A smaller scope needs a separate change to the liveness classifier. ## Model Used - Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`) by Anthropic, in Claude Code with tool use (shell, file edits, local PostgreSQL benchmarks). ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>