Unfortunately, no. The ardb.conf takes values to append to the related DDL
statement. The difference in the DDL to create an index, versus a bitmap
index, does not fit this mold. For example:
CREATE INDEX emp_bitmap_idx ON index_demo (gender);
CREATE BITMAP INDEX emp_bitmap_idx ON index_demo (gender);
The values in ardb.conf are appended to the end of the DDL, which let you do
things like this:
Form: index_demo
Clause: clause
Index {
Id: gender
Clause: clause
}
Which results in some pseudo DDL sql like this:
CREATE INDEX emp_bitmap_idx ON index_demo (gender) *TABLESPACE users*;
Axton Grams
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 12:45 PM, Garrison, Sean (Norcross) <
sean.garri...@fiserv.com> wrote:
> **
>
> Is there a way to accomplish what he is asking for by configuring the
> ardb.conf file? I would think that the index could be maintained that way
> via Remedy. Just curious.****
>
> ** **
>
> Sean****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:
> arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] *On Behalf Of *Axton
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 04, 2011 12:53 PM
> *To:* arslist@ARSLIST.ORG
> *Subject:* Re: Bitmap indexes vs Regular indexes****
>
> ** **
>
> ** 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"_ ****
>
> ** **
>
> _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"
