Improve multiGet, multiSet and multiMerge SQL operations by fabioh8010 · Pull Request #732 · Expensify/react-native-onyx

fabioh8010 · 2026-02-06T15:58:27Z

Details

Related Issues

Expensify/App#80243

Automated Tests

Manual Tests

Author Checklist

I linked the correct issue in the ### Related Issues section above
I wrote clear testing steps that cover the changes made in this PR
- I added steps for local testing in the Tests section
- I tested this PR with a High Traffic account against the staging or production API to ensure there are no regressions (e.g. long loading states that impact usability).
I included screenshots or videos for tests on all platforms
I ran the tests on all platforms & verified they passed on:
- Android / native
- Android / Chrome
- iOS / native
- iOS / Safari
- MacOS / Chrome / Safari
- MacOS / Desktop
I verified there are no console errors (if there's a console error not related to the PR, report it or open an issue for it to be fixed)
I followed proper code patterns (see Reviewing the code)
- I verified that any callback methods that were added or modified are named for what the method does and never what callback they handle (i.e. toggleReport and not onIconClick)
- I verified that the left part of a conditional rendering a React component is a boolean and NOT a string, e.g. myBool && <MyComponent />.
- I verified that comments were added to code that is not self explanatory
- I verified that any new or modified comments were clear, correct English, and explained "why" the code was doing something instead of only explaining "what" the code was doing.
- I verified proper file naming conventions were followed for any new files or renamed files. All non-platform specific files are named after what they export and are not named "index.js". All platform-specific files are named for the platform the code supports as outlined in the README.
- I verified the JSDocs style guidelines (in STYLE.md) were followed
If a new code pattern is added I verified it was agreed to be used by multiple Expensify engineers
I followed the guidelines as stated in the Review Guidelines
I tested other components that can be impacted by my changes (i.e. if the PR modifies a shared library or component like Avatar, I verified the components using Avatar are working as expected)
I verified all code is DRY (the PR doesn't include any logic written more than once, with the exception of tests)
I verified any variables that can be defined as constants (ie. in CONST.js or at the top of the file that uses the constant) are defined as such
I verified that if a function's arguments changed that all usages have also been updated correctly
If a new component is created I verified that:
- A similar component doesn't exist in the codebase
- All props are defined accurately and each prop has a /** comment above it */
- The file is named correctly
- The component has a clear name that is non-ambiguous and the purpose of the component can be inferred from the name alone
- The only data being stored in the state is data necessary for rendering and nothing else
- If we are not using the full Onyx data that we loaded, I've added the proper selector in order to ensure the component only re-renders when the data it is using changes
- For Class Components, any internal methods passed to components event handlers are bound to this properly so there are no scoping issues (i.e. for onClick={this.submit} the method this.submit should be bound to this in the constructor)
- Any internal methods bound to this are necessary to be bound (i.e. avoid this.submit = this.submit.bind(this); if this.submit is never passed to a component event handler like onClick)
- All JSX used for rendering exists in the render method
- The component has the minimum amount of code necessary for its purpose, and it is broken down into smaller components in order to separate concerns and functions
If any new file was added I verified that:
- The file has a description of what it does and/or why is needed at the top of the file if the code is not self explanatory
If the PR modifies a generic component, I tested and verified that those changes do not break usages of that component in the rest of the App (i.e. if a shared library or component like Avatar is modified, I verified that Avatar is working as expected in all cases)
If the main branch was merged into this PR after a review, I tested again and verified the outcome was still expected according to the Test steps.
I have checked off every checkbox in the PR author checklist, including those that don't apply to this PR.

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: Native

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

MacOS: Desktop

VickyStash · 2026-02-09T07:02:05Z

lib/storage/providers/SQLiteProvider.ts

-            return (result ?? []) as StorageKeyValuePair[];
-        });
+        // For a small number of keys, it's more efficient to just use a single query with multiple placeholders.
+        if (keys.length <= 500) {


nit: Maybe we can put 500 into const and add a comment why it's 500, so it doesn't look like magic number

VickyStash · 2026-02-09T07:03:19Z

lib/storage/providers/SQLiteProvider.ts

+        // FIXME: Not working because of "-" apparently.
+        // const tableName = `temp_multiGet_${Str.guid()}`;


Is it something we want to fix later in this PR or in the follow up?

JKobrynski

I agree with Vicky's comments, other than that LGTM!

pasyukevich · 2026-02-09T10:12:20Z

lib/storage/providers/SQLiteProvider.ts

+        // For a large number of keys, it becomes more performant if we insert the keys into a temporary table and perform a join.
+        // FIXME: Not working because of "-" apparently.
+        // const tableName = `temp_multiGet_${Str.guid()}`;
+        const tableName = `temp_multiGet_${Date.now()}_${Math.random().toString(36).slice(2, 8)}`;


Can we create a helper for the random part?

Also noticed that we use Math.random().toString(36).substring(2, 9) across the codebase - with 9 at the end

pasyukevich · 2026-02-09T10:14:11Z

lib/storage/providers/SQLiteProvider.ts

+        return provider.store
+            .executeAsync(`CREATE TEMP TABLE ${tableName} (record_key TEXT PRIMARY KEY);`)
+            .then(() => {
+                if (!provider.store) {


do we need this check inside the .then(() that is chained on provider.store ?

I think we need to move this check before return

pasyukevich · 2026-02-09T10:14:56Z

lib/storage/providers/SQLiteProvider.ts

+                return provider.store.executeBatchAsync([{query: insertQuery, params: insertParams}]);
+            })
+            .then(() => {
+                if (!provider.store) {


fabioh8010 added 5 commits January 29, 2026 14:24

Improvements in SQLiteProvider

c51e083

Merge branch 'main' into feature/sqliteprovider-improvements

c81b469

Minor fix in table name string

85bf84d

Add comments

7744966

Always drop the temporary table

6929683

melvin-bot bot assigned fabioh8010 Feb 6, 2026

VickyStash reviewed Feb 9, 2026

View reviewed changes

JKobrynski reviewed Feb 9, 2026

View reviewed changes

pasyukevich reviewed Feb 9, 2026

View reviewed changes

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Improve multiGet, multiSet and multiMerge SQL operations#732

Improve multiGet, multiSet and multiMerge SQL operations#732
fabioh8010 wants to merge 5 commits intoExpensify:mainfrom
callstack-internal:feature/sqliteprovider-improvements

fabioh8010 commented Feb 6, 2026

Uh oh!

VickyStash Feb 9, 2026

Uh oh!

VickyStash Feb 9, 2026

Uh oh!

JKobrynski left a comment

Uh oh!

pasyukevich Feb 9, 2026

Uh oh!

pasyukevich Feb 9, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

pasyukevich Feb 9, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

4 participants

		// FIXME: Not working because of "-" apparently.
		// const tableName = `temp_multiGet_${Str.guid()}`;

Conversation

fabioh8010 commented Feb 6, 2026

Details

Related Issues

Automated Tests

Manual Tests

Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

VickyStash Feb 9, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

VickyStash Feb 9, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

JKobrynski left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

pasyukevich Feb 9, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

pasyukevich Feb 9, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

pasyukevich Feb 9, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

4 participants

pasyukevich Feb 9, 2026 •

edited

Loading