Thanks Chris, this helps a lot. I've updated the bug report for anyone else following along.
Sam On 27/02/2013, at 5:45 AM, Chris Behrens <cbehr...@codestud.com> wrote: > > I am not understanding why there are secondary joins defined in the models. > I suspect this might break other things, but maybe you can test that this at > least makes the scheduling faster: > > http://paste.openstack.org/show/32534/ > > That seems to generate a much more acceptable query. > > - Chris > > > On Feb 25, 2013, at 9:40 PM, Sam Morrison <sorri...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> On 26/02/2013, at 4:31 PM, Chris Behrens <cbehr...@codestud.com> wrote: >> >>> After thinking more, it does seem like we're doing something wrong if the >>> query itself is returning 300k rows. :) I can take a better look at it in >>> front of the computer later if no one beats me to it. >> >> Yeah I think it's more than a missing index :-) >> >> The query does 2 INNER JOINS on aggregate_hosts then 2 INNER JOINS on >> aggregate_metadata then does a further 2 LEFT OUTER JOINS on aggregate_hosts. >> Thanks for the help, >> Sam >
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
