The report implied the shared-payment problem was solved. Measuring the whole
database shows it is solved for refunds, payouts and shifts, and 1.6% solved for
card payments:
refunds 51,986 scoped · 0 unscoped
payouts 144,652 scoped · 0 unscoped · 36 with no owner
cash-drawer shifts 69,291 scoped · 0 unscoped
card payments 259,763 scoped · 14,241,890 unscoped · 2,122,161 no owner
Sampling 2% of the orders belonging to every client that has ever contended
found 12,954 payments still owned by two orders, extrapolating to roughly
650,000 across that population.
So the balance figures are what the calculation fixes are worth on data where
the sharing had been resolved for the clients and period measured — not a claim
that the database is clean. The report now says so, and the headline stat that
claimed zero shared payments has been replaced with the 1.6% actually renamed.
Records what finishing requires: renaming is driven from orders, so it means
walking all 19,040,296 of them rather than the clients that look shared today,
since nine pairs contended in the past without sharing a location now. Measured
at ~15,000 orders/hour once the 29 GB database stopped fitting in memory — the
same code did 267,012 in 100 seconds with a warm cache — so it belongs in a
maintenance window on sized hardware. It is resumable and a second pass is a
no-op.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Bryce
74a070e545