Stop using refresh_date in civicrm_group table

[eileenmcnaughton]

Overview

Stop using refresh_date in civicrm_group table

Before

We use a mix of cache_date & refresh_date but refresh date doesn't seem to confer any extra value

After

We just use cache_date

Technical Details

I was looking to add indexes to civicrm_group.cache_date & civicrm_group.refresh_date - but I couldn't figure out why
the latter exists / is used. I went through the places it's used and it is simply a calculated version of
cache_date + smartGroupCacheTime and I can't see any value.

I can follow up on this with a removal if no-one else can see the point of it

Comments

[civibot]

(Standard links)

• If this is your first pull-request for CiviCRM, please browse CONTRIBUTING.md for information about the development and testing processes.
• If you are reviewing this pull-request, you may wish to consult the test sites and the Review Standards (long template, short template).

[demeritcowboy]

Was there some problem about groups and the log table getting really big and I sort of remember it being date-related in some way. Sorry don't have anything specific, but maybe that's what it's for? Does that sound familiar?

[mattwire]

@eileenmcnaughton I think you are probably right and we don't need both

[eileenmcnaughton]

@demeritcowboy I can only guess that it was because people originally were doing an unindexed query against cache_date & so people thought that adding refresh_date would avoid that - of course doing the date calc in php does that too....

[eileenmcnaughton]

thanks @mattwire - I suspect if you & @demeritcowboy can't find a reason for the field it doesn't exist

[demeritcowboy]

This seems like what I was thinking of: https://lab.civicrm.org/dev/core/-/issues/449. It's not related there were just several mentions of cache_date and refresh_date.

[eileenmcnaughton]

@demeritcowboy I can see why it would have traumatised you :-)