Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

handle out-of-sequence late-arrival quotes #1094

Closed
1 task
DaveSkender opened this issue Oct 12, 2023 · 1 comment · Fixed by #1230 or #1092
Closed
1 task

handle out-of-sequence late-arrival quotes #1094

DaveSkender opened this issue Oct 12, 2023 · 1 comment · Fixed by #1230 or #1092
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Milestone

Comments

@DaveSkender
Copy link
Owner

DaveSkender commented Oct 12, 2023

Handline late-arrivals in streaming use cases

consider historical recalculations, as a user optional settings (default off, or with specified period span)

The challenging part here is, outside of a current period where aggregations will handle it, when there's a late historical change, once that has increasingly larger impact the further back it goes. This can happen with an upstream correction or similarly for splits / dividend adjustments, an even more insidious impact.

For example, say you're streaming all day long with a single quote streams and 100 indicators and 30 with 2 layers of chaining. If an old or updated quote comes in for 500 periods ago you now have a rather big situation where there's potentially large and complex chain of cleanup work, $500(100+30\times2)=80,000$ in this case. It's possible to do, but if this happens frequently in large datasets, you can imagine the spiking loads that can occur.

I say "potential", because at some point it leans more towards moot than useful, it's ancient history a user may not want to address at all. The option to do this may fall into the same settings category as @elpht recommends.

  • consider historical recalculations, as a user optional settings (default off, or with specified period span)

Originally posted by @DaveSkender in #1018 (reply in thread) discussion with @elAndyG

@DaveSkender
Copy link
Owner Author

Current thoughts here are that deleting forward cached values and notifying observers is still net better load outcome than hierarchically rebuilding each increment thereafter. The later rebuild triggers rebuilds, etc. which can be an accelerating out of control loading spike. Whereas, deleting and rebuilding the base with notification can be done in an orderly time sequence manner, which would be more efficient.

@DaveSkender DaveSkender linked a pull request Oct 10, 2024 that will close this issue
1 task
@DaveSkender DaveSkender linked a pull request Oct 27, 2024 that will close this issue
29 tasks
@github-project-automation github-project-automation bot moved this from In Review to Done in Stock Indicators for .NET Oct 27, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Projects
Archived in project
1 participant