I'm still confused. You compare an update of 1 row to an update of 100 rows. Normally cfindex is slower when you compare the following:
You have 100 rows to update. Option A: Loop over each row and insert one at a time. Option B: Insert all at once as a query. Does this describe what you are doing? On 5/23/07, Pat Branley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > when you say not super fast, but fast how long would you expect a 1 > record index to take ? on our servers this can be 10 seconds and > upwards per CFINDEX call. hence the need to call cfindex via a > schedule. > > but if i do the same cfindex call with 100 rows it may only take 20-30 > seconds. > > this causes a problem when i need to re-index a whole site, (which is > infrequent i know) because i cant use my schedule with a one-at-a-time > cfindex loop like i could in 6.1 to re-index as its waay to slow (a > cfindex on 6.1 was like 1-2 seconds for a 1 row query). > > So i guess i need to change my schedules so that i minimise the amount > of calls to CFINDEX. eg. if i need to re-index 1 row then i call > CFINDEX and take the hit in the scheduled task, but if i need to re- > index 100 i still have the same number of cfindex calls because i > combine the data into 1 big query. Does that sound like a better > solution ? > > Does anyone else on the list notice the performance hit with CFINDEX > calls ? maybe its our setup causing the problem... > > Pat > > On May 23, 2:21 pm, "Raymond Camden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 5/22/07, Pat Branley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > So do you know of a 'best practice' methodology for dealing with > > > verity indexing of database content ? > > > > I'm not aware of such a document. I know that when I teach Verity I > > talk about the importance of keeping your index in sync with your db. > > So for example, any Create/Edit/Delete operation needs to ensure it > > updates th ecollection. > > > > > Ive never really seen anywhere that does a mass update of the index > > > since most of the time only 1 record changes per cycle of a scheduled > > > task. > > > > Right, and that _should_ work fine. But you were doing a mass index > > one row at a time, right? > > > > > normally we would update the index after you have saved a record to > > > the database. However, because of the overhead of calling cfindex, its > > > too slow to call on page save. So we call it via a scheduled task. the > > > schedule normally looks like (abstractly): > > > > Again though - didn't you say you were doing _lots_ of updates? If you > > update your index with ONE record, it should be fast. Not super fast, > > but fast. > > > > -r > > > > > -- =========================================================================== Raymond Camden, Camden Media Email : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Blog : ray.camdenfamily.com AOL IM : cfjedimaster --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "cfaussie" group. To post to this group, send email to cfaussie@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
