You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
It's easier to just fetch the data already from subgraph rather than perform a join (more costly too).
These, shouldn't have to be obtain through a join with the predictions table.
{etl_bronze_pdr_predictions_table_name}.pair as pair,
{etl_bronze_pdr_predictions_table_name}.timeframe as timeframe,
{etl_bronze_pdr_predictions_table_name}.source as source,
The issue here too, is that in SQL there is 1 slot event being joined <= N prediction events. Again, costly. This is being done as a left join, but it would be good to check the results of bronze_pdr_slots.py as a way to verify this.
TODOs / DoD
Review this query and it's current results/accuracy.
Simplify this query by just getting this data from subgraph.
Review other subgraph queries & etl joins where this could be simplified and fix them
Tasks
update slots and other tables to get pair/timeframe/source info from subgraph
deprecate implementing this in SQL joins
verify that queries are generating corect/expected data
Background / motivation
It's easier to just fetch the data already from subgraph rather than perform a join (more costly too).
These, shouldn't have to be obtain through a join with the predictions table.
{etl_bronze_pdr_predictions_table_name}.pair as pair,
{etl_bronze_pdr_predictions_table_name}.timeframe as timeframe,
{etl_bronze_pdr_predictions_table_name}.source as source,
The issue here too, is that in SQL there is 1 slot event being joined <= N prediction events. Again, costly. This is being done as a left join, but it would be good to check the results of

bronze_pdr_slots.pyas a way to verify this.TODOs / DoD
Tasks