Re: No index on the Name field of BMC.CORE:BMC_BaseElement (7.6.04)
Thanks Misi - performance is why I added it last time as well. It just struck me as an important enough field that there should already be an index on it, so I was questioning my understanding of it. Thanks again, Thad On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 12:10 AM, Misi Mladoniczky m...@rrr.se wrote: Hi, I added that index in my last 7.6.04 project, and it made a really big difference in performance. Best Regards - Misi, RRR AB, http://www.rrr.se (ARSList MVP 2011) Products from RRR Scandinavia (Best R.O.I. Award at WWRUG10/11): * RRR|License - Not enough Remedy licenses? Save money by optimizing. * RRR|Log - Performance issues or elusive bugs? Analyze your Remedy logs. Find these products, and many free tools and utilities, at http://rrr.se. Hello, We are reviewing the customizations we did for CMDB 2.1 in preparation for an upgrade to 7.6.04. Way back when, an index was added on the Name field of BaseElement to improve CI search speeds for our customers. I remember thinking at the time that it was odd that it wasn't already there and I see its still not there for 7.6.04. Which makes me wonder if that is a BMC oversight, or if it is by design and we are misunderstanding the purpose of the Name field and best practices for searching for CIs? Is there a reason we DON'T want to be using that field for searching or any reason that I shouldn't re-add the index? Any thoughts are appreciated. Thanks, Thad (Oracle database if that changes the response somehow) ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org attend wwrug12 www.wwrug12.com ARSList: Where the Answers Are ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org attend wwrug12 www.wwrug12.com ARSList: Where the Answers Are ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org attend wwrug12 www.wwrug12.com ARSList: Where the Answers Are
Re: No index on the Name field of BMC.CORE:BMC_BaseElement (7.6.04)
This isn't meant to be a jab at BMC, but I wouldn't question yourself too much when adding indexes that really make sense. I have seen a number of cases where I was pretty much shocked that BMC didn't add an index on a field OOB, because even the OOB functionality didn't work well without it. More often than not I suspect that it was an implementation oversight rather than a conscious decision not to include it. Lyle From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of Thad Esser Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2012 10:20 AM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: No index on the Name field of BMC.CORE:BMC_BaseElement (7.6.04) ** Thanks Misi - performance is why I added it last time as well. It just struck me as an important enough field that there should already be an index on it, so I was questioning my understanding of it. Thanks again, Thad On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 12:10 AM, Misi Mladoniczky m...@rrr.semailto:m...@rrr.se wrote: Hi, I added that index in my last 7.6.04 project, and it made a really big difference in performance. Best Regards - Misi, RRR AB, http://www.rrr.sehttp://www.rrr.se/ (ARSList MVP 2011) Products from RRR Scandinavia (Best R.O.I. Award at WWRUG10/11): * RRR|License - Not enough Remedy licenses? Save money by optimizing. * RRR|Log - Performance issues or elusive bugs? Analyze your Remedy logs. Find these products, and many free tools and utilities, at http://rrr.sehttp://rrr.se/. Hello, We are reviewing the customizations we did for CMDB 2.1 in preparation for an upgrade to 7.6.04. Way back when, an index was added on the Name field of BaseElement to improve CI search speeds for our customers. I remember thinking at the time that it was odd that it wasn't already there and I see its still not there for 7.6.04. Which makes me wonder if that is a BMC oversight, or if it is by design and we are misunderstanding the purpose of the Name field and best practices for searching for CIs? Is there a reason we DON'T want to be using that field for searching or any reason that I shouldn't re-add the index? Any thoughts are appreciated. Thanks, Thad (Oracle database if that changes the response somehow) ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.orghttp://www.arslist.org/ attend wwrug12 www.wwrug12.comhttp://www.wwrug12.com/ ARSList: Where the Answers Are ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.orghttp://www.arslist.org/ attend wwrug12 www.wwrug12.comhttp://www.wwrug12.com/ ARSList: Where the Answers Are _attend WWRUG12 www.wwrug.comhttp://www.wwrug.com ARSlist: Where the Answers Are_ NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org attend wwrug12 www.wwrug12.com ARSList: Where the Answers Are
Re: No index on the Name field of BMC.CORE:BMC_BaseElement (7.6.04)
The Email message error form needed an index on message id.This was missing OOB On Monday, June 4, 2012 6:42:06 PM UTC-5, Thad Esser wrote: ** Hello, We are reviewing the customizations we did for CMDB 2.1 in preparation for an upgrade to 7.6.04. Way back when, an index was added on the Name field of BaseElement to improve CI search speeds for our customers. I remember thinking at the time that it was odd that it wasn't already there and I see its still not there for 7.6.04. Which makes me wonder if that is a BMC oversight, or if it is by design and we are misunderstanding the purpose of the Name field and best practices for searching for CIs? Is there a reason we DON'T want to be using that field for searching or any reason that I shouldn't re-add the index? Any thoughts are appreciated. Thanks, Thad (Oracle database if that changes the response somehow) _attend WWRUG12 www.wwrug.com ARSlist: Where the Answers Are_ On Monday, June 4, 2012 6:42:06 PM UTC-5, Thad Esser wrote: ** Hello, We are reviewing the customizations we did for CMDB 2.1 in preparation for an upgrade to 7.6.04. Way back when, an index was added on the Name field of BaseElement to improve CI search speeds for our customers. I remember thinking at the time that it was odd that it wasn't already there and I see its still not there for 7.6.04. Which makes me wonder if that is a BMC oversight, or if it is by design and we are misunderstanding the purpose of the Name field and best practices for searching for CIs? Is there a reason we DON'T want to be using that field for searching or any reason that I shouldn't re-add the index? Any thoughts are appreciated. Thanks, Thad (Oracle database if that changes the response somehow) _attend WWRUG12 www.wwrug.com ARSlist: Where the Answers Are_ On Monday, June 4, 2012 6:42:06 PM UTC-5, Thad Esser wrote: ** Hello, We are reviewing the customizations we did for CMDB 2.1 in preparation for an upgrade to 7.6.04. Way back when, an index was added on the Name field of BaseElement to improve CI search speeds for our customers. I remember thinking at the time that it was odd that it wasn't already there and I see its still not there for 7.6.04. Which makes me wonder if that is a BMC oversight, or if it is by design and we are misunderstanding the purpose of the Name field and best practices for searching for CIs? Is there a reason we DON'T want to be using that field for searching or any reason that I shouldn't re-add the index? Any thoughts are appreciated. Thanks, Thad (Oracle database if that changes the response somehow) _attend WWRUG12 www.wwrug.com ARSlist: Where the Answers Are_ On Monday, June 4, 2012 6:42:06 PM UTC-5, Thad Esser wrote: ** Hello, We are reviewing the customizations we did for CMDB 2.1 in preparation for an upgrade to 7.6.04. Way back when, an index was added on the Name field of BaseElement to improve CI search speeds for our customers. I remember thinking at the time that it was odd that it wasn't already there and I see its still not there for 7.6.04. Which makes me wonder if that is a BMC oversight, or if it is by design and we are misunderstanding the purpose of the Name field and best practices for searching for CIs? Is there a reason we DON'T want to be using that field for searching or any reason that I shouldn't re-add the index? Any thoughts are appreciated. Thanks, Thad (Oracle database if that changes the response somehow) _attend WWRUG12 www.wwrug.com ARSlist: Where the Answers Are_ On Monday, June 4, 2012 6:42:06 PM UTC-5, Thad Esser wrote: ** Hello, We are reviewing the customizations we did for CMDB 2.1 in preparation for an upgrade to 7.6.04. Way back when, an index was added on the Name field of BaseElement to improve CI search speeds for our customers. I remember thinking at the time that it was odd that it wasn't already there and I see its still not there for 7.6.04. Which makes me wonder if that is a BMC oversight, or if it is by design and we are misunderstanding the purpose of the Name field and best practices for searching for CIs? Is there a reason we DON'T want to be using that field for searching or any reason that I shouldn't re-add the index? Any thoughts are appreciated. Thanks, Thad (Oracle database if that changes the response somehow) _attend WWRUG12 www.wwrug.com ARSlist: Where the Answers Are_ On Monday, June 4, 2012 6:42:06 PM UTC-5, Thad Esser wrote: ** Hello, We are reviewing the customizations we did for CMDB 2.1 in preparation for an upgrade to 7.6.04. Way back when, an index was added on the Name field of BaseElement to improve CI search speeds for our customers. I remember thinking at the time that it was odd that it wasn't already there and I see its still not there for 7.6.04. Which makes me wonder if
Re: No index on the Name field of BMC.CORE:BMC_BaseElement (7.6.04)
Hi, I added that index in my last 7.6.04 project, and it made a really big difference in performance. Best Regards - Misi, RRR AB, http://www.rrr.se (ARSList MVP 2011) Products from RRR Scandinavia (Best R.O.I. Award at WWRUG10/11): * RRR|License - Not enough Remedy licenses? Save money by optimizing. * RRR|Log - Performance issues or elusive bugs? Analyze your Remedy logs. Find these products, and many free tools and utilities, at http://rrr.se. Hello, We are reviewing the customizations we did for CMDB 2.1 in preparation for an upgrade to 7.6.04. Way back when, an index was added on the Name field of BaseElement to improve CI search speeds for our customers. I remember thinking at the time that it was odd that it wasn't already there and I see its still not there for 7.6.04. Which makes me wonder if that is a BMC oversight, or if it is by design and we are misunderstanding the purpose of the Name field and best practices for searching for CIs? Is there a reason we DON'T want to be using that field for searching or any reason that I shouldn't re-add the index? Any thoughts are appreciated. Thanks, Thad (Oracle database if that changes the response somehow) ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org attend wwrug12 www.wwrug12.com ARSList: Where the Answers Are ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org attend wwrug12 www.wwrug12.com ARSList: Where the Answers Are
