<span style="color: transparent; display: none; height: 0; max-height: 0; max-width: 0; opacity: 0; overflow: hidden; mso-hide: all; visibility: hidden; width: 0;">
  <blockquote>
<p dir="auto">even the question of how much point there is in treating the two separately.... but that's another can of worms.</p>
</blockquote>
<p dir="auto">The idea to get rid of current tables in one way or another isn't entirely new. Back in 2009, the infamous "Rantings about API 0.6" thread saw this comment: <a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/dev/2009-February/013962.html" rel="nofollow">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/dev/2009-February/013962.html</a>:</p>
<p dir="auto"><em>As for whether the current tables could be eliminated (or perhaps scaled back to a pointer record), that is another question entirely.  It would complicate queries somewhat which might have a detrimental impact on  performance but would have advantages in terms of avoiding data duplication and potential inconsistencies.</em></p>
<p dir="auto">Even today, I share the same concerns about performance. Finding the latest version of an object is fairly cheap today. Without current tables, performance may be abysmal. Before considering this option, it seems inevitable to run some serious performance tests on the entire dataset.</p><p style="font-size:small;-webkit-text-size-adjust:none;color:#666;">—<br />Reply to this email directly, <a href="https://github.com/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website/issues/5619#issuecomment-2661578963">view it on GitHub</a>, or <a href="https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAK2OLODGI6VVJLBD2FIZSD2QDQPXAVCNFSM6AAAAABWRVAF2WVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDMNRRGU3TQOJWGM">unsubscribe</a>.<br />You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.<img src="https://github.com/notifications/beacon/AAK2OLLAL2ZCW2JCPVQ4FZD2QDQPXA5CNFSM6AAAAABWRVAF2WWGG33NNVSW45C7OR4XAZNMJFZXG5LFINXW23LFNZ2KUY3PNVWWK3TUL5UWJTU6UR4NG.gif" height="1" width="1" alt="" /><span style="color: transparent; font-size: 0; display: none; visibility: hidden; overflow: hidden; opacity: 0; width: 0; height: 0; max-width: 0; max-height: 0; mso-hide: all">Message ID: <span><openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website/issues/5619/2661578963</span><span>@</span><span>github</span><span>.</span><span>com></span></span></p>
</span>


<div style="display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap; white-space: pre-wrap; align-items: center; "><img alt="mmd-osm" height="20" width="20" style="border-radius:50%; margin-right: 4px;" decoding="async" src="https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/5842757?s=20&v=4" /><strong>mmd-osm</strong> left a comment <a href="https://github.com/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website/issues/5619#issuecomment-2661578963">(openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website#5619)</a></div>
<blockquote>
<p dir="auto">even the question of how much point there is in treating the two separately.... but that's another can of worms.</p>
</blockquote>
<p dir="auto">The idea to get rid of current tables in one way or another isn't entirely new. Back in 2009, the infamous "Rantings about API 0.6" thread saw this comment: <a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/dev/2009-February/013962.html" rel="nofollow">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/dev/2009-February/013962.html</a>:</p>
<p dir="auto"><em>As for whether the current tables could be eliminated (or perhaps scaled back to a pointer record), that is another question entirely.  It would complicate queries somewhat which might have a detrimental impact on  performance but would have advantages in terms of avoiding data duplication and potential inconsistencies.</em></p>
<p dir="auto">Even today, I share the same concerns about performance. Finding the latest version of an object is fairly cheap today. Without current tables, performance may be abysmal. Before considering this option, it seems inevitable to run some serious performance tests on the entire dataset.</p>

<p style="font-size:small;-webkit-text-size-adjust:none;color:#666;">—<br />Reply to this email directly, <a href="https://github.com/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website/issues/5619#issuecomment-2661578963">view it on GitHub</a>, or <a href="https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAK2OLODGI6VVJLBD2FIZSD2QDQPXAVCNFSM6AAAAABWRVAF2WVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDMNRRGU3TQOJWGM">unsubscribe</a>.<br />You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.<img src="https://github.com/notifications/beacon/AAK2OLLAL2ZCW2JCPVQ4FZD2QDQPXA5CNFSM6AAAAABWRVAF2WWGG33NNVSW45C7OR4XAZNMJFZXG5LFINXW23LFNZ2KUY3PNVWWK3TUL5UWJTU6UR4NG.gif" height="1" width="1" alt="" /><span style="color: transparent; font-size: 0; display: none; visibility: hidden; overflow: hidden; opacity: 0; width: 0; height: 0; max-width: 0; max-height: 0; mso-hide: all">Message ID: <span><openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website/issues/5619/2661578963</span><span>@</span><span>github</span><span>.</span><span>com></span></span></p>

<script type="application/ld+json">[
{
"@context": "http://schema.org",
"@type": "EmailMessage",
"potentialAction": {
"@type": "ViewAction",
"target": "https://github.com/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website/issues/5619#issuecomment-2661578963",
"url": "https://github.com/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website/issues/5619#issuecomment-2661578963",
"name": "View Issue"
},
"description": "View this Issue on GitHub",
"publisher": {
"@type": "Organization",
"name": "GitHub",
"url": "https://github.com"
}
}
]</script>