Also keep in mind that certain form modifications will drop those indexes. If that happens you will need to recreate the indexes. It used to be that the alteration of the precision of a decimal field, or the modification of a currency field would trigger this. Not sure if this still holds true.
Axton Grams On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 11:25 AM, Rick Cook <remedyr...@gmail.com> wrote: > ** Well, the immediate question is best answered by whether fast submits or > fast searches are more important. That's a form-by-form argument, and you > have to balance your users' needs and potential SLAs for performance in > there as you see best. > > The longer-term question is about the viability of having your indexes > maintained at the DB level. I think if I were having some there, I would > want to have them all there - if that made sense from a performance > standpoint, and if they could be maintained in sync with application > customizations. That's a lot of work - is the potential gain worth it? > > Guillaume's advice is sound. > > Rick > > > On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 9:19 AM, Guillaume Rheault <guilla...@dcshq.com>wrote: > >> ** >> Hi Ron, >> >> My thoughts are these bitmap indexes should be created at the database >> level, so that Remedy is not aware of them, because all Remedy created >> indexes are "standard" (i.e. b-tree indexes). >> After these indexes are created, the DBA can profile the overall >> performance again, to see if the expected benefits are there. Otherwise, the >> bitmap indexes should be dropped and the indexes created as b-tree through >> Remedy. >> >> When you migrate the forms between environments, you need to remember to >> re-create these bitmap indexes at the database level. >> >> What BMC is saying that bitmap indexes are longer to write depends on the >> level of concurrency on the update of the bitmap index: it may or may not be >> an issue in your environment >> >> take a look at this article here: >> >> http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/articles/sharma-indexes-093638.html >> >> Guillaume >> >> ------------------------------ >> *From:* Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [ >> arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] on behalf of Ron Tavares [ron.tava...@gmail.com] >> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 04, 2011 9:10 AM >> *To:* arslist@ARSLIST.ORG >> *Subject:* Bitmap indexes vs Regular indexes >> >> ** >> Good Morning List, >> >> I am a Remedy guy, not a DB guy,.. so I am looking for some help from the >> DBAs on the List. Recently, our DBA ran a performance analysis of our >> Remedy DB and came back with 9 fields that are recommended for indexing. 3 >> of those fields are recommended to have bitmap indexes. This cannot be >> created in Remedy. So we can either create these as standard indexes >> instead of bitmap, so that the Remedy system is aware of them, (this is >> what BMC is recommending). OR, we can have the DBA create them at the DB >> level as the recommended bitmap indexes, but then Remedy is not aware they >> exist. >> >> BMC is saying that bitmap indexes have a downfall in that they take a lot >> longer to write to. Our DBA is saying that we will not get the searching >> performance improvement we seek unless we use the bitmap indexes. >> >> Any thoughts from the pros? >> >> Thanks in advance, >> .ron >> _attend WWRUG11 www.wwrug.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"_ >> _attend WWRUG11 www.wwrug.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"_ > > > _attend WWRUG11 www.wwrug.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"_ > _______________________________________________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org attend wwrug11 www.wwrug.com ARSList: "Where the Answers Are"
