Hello! I'm not familiar with some of the issues you raised, but let me try a few guesses... On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 8:02 AM Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> wrote: this have been raised before. I do remember quality replies like it is not exponential so there is no problem. However, here we are and there is a problem. have the impression that they are put in some kind of suspended animation by a person. These jobs are submitted by the SourceMD tool by Magnus, Magnus is well known for being responsive to suggestions on how he can improve them. So do not use as an argument that there is something wrong with these job. At most it is acceptable for these run to put on some kind of hold for the duration of a crisis and then there has to be a release. I'm not familiar with sourcemd, and the link you provided isn't very clear on what the actual error is. I just guessing, but maybe sourcemd has some assumptions about updates to WDQS being synchronous, or quasi-synchronous. Another guess is that it might be subject to throttling and not backing off appropriately, and maybe it ends up being banned for some time. If anyone knows what user agent is used by sourcemd, I can have a look into the WDQS logs to get more information. with the same ORCiD id include items that should have been picked up by earlier reports. I notice that query does not pick up existing items with an ORCid id and creates new ones. For me this is an indication that Query is not reliable. descriptions in anything but English. What caused this discussion is the sheer amount of updates needed just for one language. At the London Wikimania this perceived need for fixed descriptions was discussed vis a vis automated descriptions and as I recall the only argument for having them at all was "standards" in relation to dumps. Yes, automated descriptions may be cached and included in a dump. the relevance of the Scholia presentation for scientists. When I do, the number of jobs like the ones I run will mushroom. It is why I have not put anything forward so far because we cannot cope as it is. update for the short medium and long term Honestly, I'm not sure what the issue is, so I can't assure you those batches will be able to complete. What we can do is work together to understand the issue and see what needs to be fixed. Scholia is for them, the subject they care for. sufficient performance to do the tasks they care for. It depends on who "we" is. I care, and I know that people on my team care. Which does not mean we will be able to magically fix everything, but we're trying. In more general terms, scaling Wikidata and Wikidata Query Service will require challenging some of our assumptions. Workflows that assume WDQS to be updated synchronously will fail more and more. Throttling is becoming more and more important to the stability of the service and to a fair access to resources, so clients will need to be able to smooth their load and backoff appropriately. Sorry to not have a direct solution to your current issues, but let's try to find one! Have fun! Guillaume -- Guillaume Lederrey Engineering Manager, Search Platform Wikimedia Foundation UTC+2 / CEST _______________________________________________ Wikidata mailing list Wikidata(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

Hoi, The performance of the query update is getting worse. Questions about this have been raised before. I do remember quality replies like it is not exponential so there is no problem. However, here we are and there is a problem. The problem is that I run batch jobs, batch jobs that do not run [1]. I have the impression that they are put in some kind of suspended animation by a person. These jobs are submitted by the SourceMD tool by Magnus, Magnus is well known for being responsive to suggestions on how he can improve them. So do not use as an argument that there is something wrong with these job. At most it is acceptable for these run to put on some kind of hold for the duration of a crisis and then there has to be a release. At the same time I notice that the reports indicating multiple items with the same ORCiD id include items that should have been picked up by earlier reports. I notice that query does not pick up existing items with an ORCid id and creates new ones. For me this is an indication that Query is not reliable. There is talk on the Wiki that there is no point in having fixed descriptions in anything but English. What caused this discussion is the sheer amount of updates needed just for one language. At the London Wikimania this perceived need for fixed descriptions was discussed vis a vis automated descriptions and as I recall the only argument for having them at all was "standards" in relation to dumps. Yes, automated descriptions may be cached and included in a dump. I have been asked to write for the ORCiD blog and thereby in effect plug the relevance of the Scholia presentation for scientists. When I do, the number of jobs like the ones I run will mushroom. It is why I have not put anything forward so far because we cannot cope as it is. The issues I see is, * again to what extend can we grow our content, both for query and update for the short medium and long term * will batch jobs like mine be able to complete * can we ingest the attention when scholars discover how relevant Scholia is for them, the subject they care for. * do we care that motivation of volunteers relies on the availability of sufficient performance to do the tasks they care for. Thanks, Gerard [1] https://tools.wmflabs.org/sourcemd/?action=batches&user=GerardM _______________________________________________ Wikidata mailing list Wikidata(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata