You could be right about the index being forgotten :-) and you are right about making an index with a smaller width than the full column. But i haven't seen such a drastic drop in performance as you seem to have encountered without indices.
One other point that i noted is that most of the key fields are not numeric this also leads to a big drop in performance both for inserts and retrievals.
best regards raditha
Matthias Wimmer wrote:
Hi Raditha!
Raditha Dissanayake schrieb am 2003-09-05 19:20:00:
I guess Bentoit and Co might have left the tables without indices because there's a large number of inserts being done on these tables. That's because mod_roster passes the entire roster to XDB when a change occurs. xdb_sql deletes the whole lot and inserts them anew.
I did a patch for this sometime back but never got around to contributing it. With that patch the roster entries just get updated instead of delete/insert. Let me try to dig it up and send it in.
I don't know if it is faster without an index on small databases, but on amessage the difference is enormous. Without the index it was not really usable. It the insert operation would get that expensive with the indexes, I don't think it would exist on the rosterusers table. It think the index has just been forgotten.
And on the rosterusers table the index could get smaller and wouldn't decrease performance if it is limited to maybe the first 32 characters of username and jid.
Tot kijk
Matthias
-- http://www.radinks.com/upload Drag and Drop File Uploader.
_______________________________________________ jdev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/jdev
