❯ go run main.go sites resources 8a4add9e-0e99-4bb1-949c-c9faf9a49ad4
Querying resource names...

Name    Resolver    Type    Gateway Name
----    --------    ----    ------------
No resources found in the site

It spent about 30 seconds until the results came back. Does it take this long because sdpctl is waiting for the server response (i.e. it is a compute-intensive task in the Controller)?

❯ go run main.go sites resources 8a4add9e-0e99-4bb1-949c-c9faf9a49ad4
Querying resource names...

Name    Resolver    Type    Gateway Name
----    --------    ----    ------------
No resources found in the site

It spent about 30 seconds until the results came back. Does it take this long because sdpctl is waiting for the server response (i.e. it is a compute-intensive task in the Controller)?

The API endpoint requires a resolver and resource type be specified. So, the only way to get all of the resources is to try every combination of resolver and resource type. I suspect the O^2 nature of this to be the issue.

If you specify a resolver and resource type when running the command it's fast though.

I think the most reasonable option to improve the performance would be changing the API to allow a request without any filtering. Although, I guess a problem with changing the API would be backwards compatibility. We'd still need the current approach for backwards compatibility for a long time.

There are three possible solutions client side but I don't like any of them:

1. Run many requests simultaneously. I worry about this destabilizing the controller or hitting rate limits.
2. Maintain a mapping list so only valid combinations are tried. Currently, all combinations are tried (even invalid ones). But, I felt that maintaining a valid combination list would be more trouble than it was worth. Especially given that it's probably best solved server side with a way to query for all resources.
3. Mirror the API and require a resolver type and resource type be specified. Personally I much prefer being able to scan for all resources even if it takes a while.

So, I agree the performance isn't the best but I'm not really sure of a reasonable way to improve it. If I had to pick one I'd go with option 1 I guess.