Sample Comments
π Performance Analysis Summary
Overall Impact: CRITICAL
Estimated Runtime Change: +500% to +1000%
Risk Level: BLOCKING - DO NOT MERGE
π Detailed Model Analysis
Model: mart_sales_performance_summary.sql (NEW)
mart_sales_performance_summary.sql (NEW)Current Performance:
N/A (new model)
Predicted Performance:
Runtime: 10-20x slower than typical mart models
Memory Usage: Exponential growth with data volume
CPU Usage: Extreme due to multiple full table scans
Critical Issues Identified:
π΄ DUPLICATE SUBQUERIES (Lines 6-11)
-- PROBLEM: Exact same subquery executed twice (select count(*) from {{ ref('stg_product_performance') }} p where p.price_tier = 'Premium') as premium_product_count, (select count(*) from {{ ref('stg_product_performance') }} p where p.price_tier = 'Premium') as premium_count_duplicate,Impact: 2x execution time for identical operation Fix: Use a CTE to calculate once
π΄ UNNECESSARY ORDER BY IN AGGREGATION (Line 15)
(select avg(standard_cost) from {{ ref('stg_product_performance') }} order by product_id) as avg_cost,Impact: Sorting entire table for no benefit in AVG() Fix: Remove ORDER BY clause
π΄ CARTESIAN PRODUCT (Lines 31-32)
from {{ ref('stg_salesperson') }} s, {{ ref('stg_territory') }} tImpact: Creates n_salespeople Γ n_territories rows Fix: Add proper JOIN condition
π΄ TRIPLE-NESTED CASE STATEMENT (Lines 19-29)
3 levels of nested subqueries scanning entire table repeatedly Fix: Calculate once in CTE
π‘ REDUNDANT STRING OPERATIONS (Line 17)
upper(lower(upper(s.salesperson_name_clean))) as name_processedFix: Single UPPER() call
π‘ NON-DETERMINISTIC SORT (Line 40)
order by upper(s.salesperson_name_clean), current_timestamp()Fix: Remove current_timestamp()
Model: mart_sales_perfromance_dashboard.sql (MODIFIED)
mart_sales_perfromance_dashboard.sql (MODIFIED)Current Performance:
Average runtime: ~5 seconds
Stable performance across runs
Predicted Performance:
Runtime: 50-100x slower (potential timeout)
Memory Usage: CRITICAL - likely OOM
Database Load: Extreme
Critical Issues Identified:
π΄ TRIPLE CROSS JOIN EXPLOSION (Lines 25-27)
Impact: If you have:
100 territories Γ 50 salespeople Γ 1000 products = 5,000,000 rows
Original had proper aggregations, this creates raw cartesian product Fix: Revert to original JOIN logic
π΄ LOST ALL AGGREGATIONS
Original had GROUP BY with meaningful metrics
New version has no aggregations, just row explosion Impact: Lost all business logic and created data bomb
π΄ POINTLESS NESTED CTEs (Lines 3-18)
Impact: References undefined tables, adds overhead
π‘ DUPLICATE CALCULATIONS (Lines 38-48)
Same CASE statement calculated twice as market_type_a and market_type_b Fix: Calculate once
π‘ FAKE CORRELATED SUBQUERY (Lines 52-54)
Impact: Always returns 1, executes per row Fix: Remove entirely
π Optimization Opportunities
Immediate Fixes Required:
Replace CROSS JOINs with proper relationships:
Use CTEs for repeated calculations:
Consider incremental materialization:
β
Action Items (Priority Order)
π¨ IMMEDIATE: Block PR merge - will crash production
π΄ Fix CROSS JOINs: Add proper JOIN conditions between tables
π΄ Restore aggregations: Revert dashboard to use GROUP BY logic
π΄ Remove duplicate subqueries: Use CTEs for repeated calculations
π‘ Clean up redundant operations: Remove unnecessary string manipulations
π‘ Add performance hints: Consider partitioning if tables are large
π Historical Context
Based on metrics:
Current production runtime: ~3-5 seconds per DAG run
These changes would increase to: 30-300+ seconds
Risk of timeout at default 30-second threshold
Previous similar cartesian product issue caused significant outage
Final Verdict
REQUEST CHANGES - The proposed changes introduce multiple critical performance issues that would severely degrade pipeline performance and potentially cause production failures. The CROSS JOIN patterns alone could increase runtime by 1000% and cause memory exhaustion. These changes must be refactored before merging.
Last updated