> Actually, it is worse than what you describe above. The problem is that I
> did not consider in my proposal what happens in an Incremental backup. As
> proposed, it simply will not work.
>
> > Maybe it would be easier to add a parentid in the Path table.
>
> This is probably a nice solution tha
On 8/26/07, Dan Langille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 26 Aug 2007 at 13:28, demerphq wrote:
> > On 8/26/07, Dan Langille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On 26 Aug 2007 at 0:52, demerphq wrote:
> > [...]
> >
> > Select all and only children of a single node in a single query:
> >
> > select C.*
On Thursday 30 August 2007 20:44, Marc Cousin wrote:
> > > If we separate the current File data into Dirs and Files, first, we
> > > have reduced the amount of data that we need to look through to find
> > > the directory tree for a job by about a factor of 100 on most typical
> > > Unix systems.
On Thursday 30 August 2007 20:44, Marc Cousin wrote:
> > > If we separate the current File data into Dirs and Files, first, we
> > > have reduced the amount of data that we need to look through to find
> > > the directory tree for a job by about a factor of 100 on most typical
> > > Unix systems.
> > If we separate the current File data into Dirs and Files, first, we have
> > reduced the amount of data that we need to look through to find the
> > directory tree for a job by about a factor of 100 on most typical Unix
> > systems. That is already good. Then, in the Dirs table we can have th
Le Tuesday 28 August 2007 16:12:56 Kern Sibbald, vous avez écrit :
> On Tuesday 28 August 2007 13:30, Cousin Marc wrote:
> > Le Tuesday 28 August 2007 11:57:28 Kern Sibbald, vous avez écrit :
> > > On Tuesday 28 August 2007 10:41, BOLLENGIER Eric wrote:
> > > > > > For the visibility flag, it may n
On Tuesday 28 August 2007 13:30, Cousin Marc wrote:
> Le Tuesday 28 August 2007 11:57:28 Kern Sibbald, vous avez écrit :
> > On Tuesday 28 August 2007 10:41, BOLLENGIER Eric wrote:
> > > > > For the visibility flag, it may not be that easy : a directory may
> > > > > be visible even if it's not in
Le Tuesday 28 August 2007 11:57:28 Kern Sibbald, vous avez écrit :
> On Tuesday 28 August 2007 10:41, BOLLENGIER Eric wrote:
> > > > For the visibility flag, it may not be that easy : a directory may be
> > > > visible even if it's not in a backup. For instance, /home if
> > > > /home/marc is backu
Le Tuesday 28 August 2007 10:24:03 Kern Sibbald, vous avez écrit :
> On Sunday 26 August 2007 09:17, Marc Cousin wrote:
> > On Sunday 26 August 2007 07:43:25 Kern Sibbald wrote:
> > > Hello Marc,
> > >
> > > I don't yet understand the details of how you use these tables, but it
> > > seems to me th
On Tuesday 28 August 2007 10:41, BOLLENGIER Eric wrote:
> > > For the visibility flag, it may not be that easy : a directory may be
> > > visible even if it's not in a backup. For instance, /home if /home/marc
> > > is backuped should be displayed, so we add an entry from /home in
> > > pathvisibil
> > For the visibility flag, it may not be that easy : a directory may be
> > visible even if it's not in a backup. For instance, /home if /home/marc
> > is backuped should be displayed, so we add an entry from /home in
> > pathvisibility for the job where /home/marc is backed up.
>
> Isn't the vis
On Sunday 26 August 2007 09:17, Marc Cousin wrote:
> On Sunday 26 August 2007 07:43:25 Kern Sibbald wrote:
> > Hello Marc,
> >
> > I don't yet understand the details of how you use these tables, but it
> > seems to me that we could modify the Bacula table structure as follows:
> >
> > - Split the F
> If you don't need to grab a subtree then yes, PP is fine. If you do
> its not ideal. I guess i misunderstood the problem, i thought you
> wanted to get "all descendants of a given node". If not, well,
> apologies for the noise. :-)
>
> Yves
Yes, we just want direct children... The purpose is to
On 26 Aug 2007 at 13:28, demerphq wrote:
> On 8/26/07, Dan Langille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 26 Aug 2007 at 0:52, demerphq wrote:
> [...]
> > > > Can you explain the pros and cons over something like a parent-child
> > > > relationship? That each, each file entry has a link to the parent
On 8/26/07, Marc Cousin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sunday 26 August 2007 00:52:33 demerphq wrote:
[snip]
> > The idea is fairly straight forward, each record has a Left and Right
> > value, any children will have left and right values such that P.Left
> > <= C.left and C.right <=P.right. An in
On 8/26/07, Dan Langille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 26 Aug 2007 at 0:52, demerphq wrote:
[...]
> > > Can you explain the pros and cons over something like a parent-child
> > > relationship? That each, each file entry has a link to the parent
> > > directory. This would be a self referential
On Sunday 26 August 2007 00:52:33 demerphq wrote:
> On 8/25/07, Dan Langille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 25 Aug 2007 at 10:51, Eric Bollengier wrote:
> > > On Saturday 25 August 2007 10:31:04 you wrote:
> > > > Hello Marc,
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for the information. I think this is something
On Sunday 26 August 2007 07:43:25 Kern Sibbald wrote:
> Hello Marc,
>
> I don't yet understand the details of how you use these tables, but it
> seems to me that we could modify the Bacula table structure as follows:
>
> - Split the File table into two new tables:
> - Files containing only file
Hello Marc,
I don't yet understand the details of how you use these tables, but it seems
to me that we could modify the Bacula table structure as follows:
- Split the File table into two new tables:
- Files containing only file entries
- Dirs containing the equivalent of a current File e
On 26 Aug 2007 at 0:52, demerphq wrote:
> On 8/25/07, Dan Langille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 25 Aug 2007 at 10:51, Eric Bollengier wrote:
> >
> > > On Saturday 25 August 2007 10:31:04 you wrote:
> > > > Hello Marc,
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for the information. I think this is something that
On 8/25/07, Dan Langille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 25 Aug 2007 at 10:51, Eric Bollengier wrote:
>
> > On Saturday 25 August 2007 10:31:04 you wrote:
> > > Hello Marc,
> > >
> > > Thanks for the information. I think this is something that is probably
> > > well worth the effort to put in the
On Saturday 25 August 2007 22:25:00 Dan Langille wrote:
> On 25 Aug 2007 at 22:07, Marc Cousin wrote:
> > On Saturday 25 August 2007 21:34:25 Dan Langille wrote:
> > > On 25 Aug 2007 at 10:51, Eric Bollengier wrote:
> > > > On Saturday 25 August 2007 10:31:04 you wrote:
> > > > > Hello Marc,
> > >
On 25 Aug 2007 at 22:07, Marc Cousin wrote:
> On Saturday 25 August 2007 21:34:25 Dan Langille wrote:
> > On 25 Aug 2007 at 10:51, Eric Bollengier wrote:
> > > On Saturday 25 August 2007 10:31:04 you wrote:
> > > > Hello Marc,
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for the information. I think this is something
On Saturday 25 August 2007 21:34:25 Dan Langille wrote:
> On 25 Aug 2007 at 10:51, Eric Bollengier wrote:
> > On Saturday 25 August 2007 10:31:04 you wrote:
> > > Hello Marc,
> > >
> > > Thanks for the information. I think this is something that is probably
> > > well worth the effort to put in th
On 25 Aug 2007 at 10:51, Eric Bollengier wrote:
> On Saturday 25 August 2007 10:31:04 you wrote:
> > Hello Marc,
> >
> > Thanks for the information. I think this is something that is probably
> > well worth the effort to put in the core Bacula code. I'm going to study
> > it a bit to see how it
On Saturday 25 August 2007 17:48:22 Dirk Bartley wrote:
> On Sat, 2007-08-25 at 09:43 +0200, Marc Cousin wrote:
> > On Saturday 25 August 2007 09:03:49 Kern Sibbald wrote:
> > > Hello Marc,
> > >
> > > Now that we have a number of "browsers" and users are doing a lot more
> > > queries, it might be
On Sat, 2007-08-25 at 09:43 +0200, Marc Cousin wrote:
> On Saturday 25 August 2007 09:03:49 Kern Sibbald wrote:
> > Hello Marc,
> >
> > Now that we have a number of "browsers" and users are doing a lot more
> > queries, it might be a good idea to consider re-organizing a few of the
> > Bacula table
Thanks,
Kern
On Saturday 25 August 2007 10:51, Eric Bollengier wrote:
> On Saturday 25 August 2007 10:31:04 you wrote:
> > Hello Marc,
> >
> > Thanks for the information. I think this is something that is probably
> > well worth the effort to put in the core Bacula code. I'm going to study
> >
> For example, this is how we list files in a directory :
>
> SELECT File.FilenameId, listfiles.id, listfiles.Name, File.LStat,
> File.JobId FROM
> (SELECT Filename.Name, max(File.FileId) as id
>FROM File, Filename
>WHERE File.FilenameId = Filename.FilenameId
> AND Fi
On Saturday 25 August 2007 10:31:04 you wrote:
> Hello Marc,
>
> Thanks for the information. I think this is something that is probably
> well worth the effort to put in the core Bacula code. I'm going to study
> it a bit to see how it might be organized into a project. Code like this
> might al
Hello Marc,
Thanks for the information. I think this is something that is probably well
worth the effort to put in the core Bacula code. I'm going to study it a bit
to see how it might be organized into a project. Code like this might also
help a lot for the simple restores that Bacula curre
On Saturday 25 August 2007 09:03:49 Kern Sibbald wrote:
> Hello Marc,
>
> Now that we have a number of "browsers" and users are doing a lot more
> queries, it might be a good idea to consider re-organizing a few of the
> Bacula tables to improve the efficiency of the queries (and also perhaps
> bac
Hello Marc,
Now that we have a number of "browsers" and users are doing a lot more
queries, it might be a good idea to consider re-organizing a few of the
Bacula tables to improve the efficiency of the queries (and also perhaps
backups and restores).
Please see more below...
On Friday 24 Augu
On Thursday 23 August 2007 04:02:07 Dirk Bartley wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-08-22 at 10:11 -0400, Dan Langille wrote:
> > On 21 Aug 2007 at 20:07, Dirk Bartley wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2007-08-20 at 08:04 -0400, Dan Langille wrote:
> > > > > There are basically three queries. One to get a list of
> > > > >
On 22 Aug 2007 at 22:02, Dirk Bartley wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-08-22 at 10:11 -0400, Dan Langille wrote:
> > If you can put your database on a website somewhere, I'll download it
> > and try it out and work on the query that way.
>
> I will respectfully choose not to do that at this time. I fea
On Thursday 23 August 2007 04:02, Dirk Bartley wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-08-22 at 10:11 -0400, Dan Langille wrote:
> > On 21 Aug 2007 at 20:07, Dirk Bartley wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2007-08-20 at 08:04 -0400, Dan Langille wrote:
> > > > > There are basically three queries. One to get a list of
> > > > > d
On Wed, 2007-08-22 at 10:11 -0400, Dan Langille wrote:
> On 21 Aug 2007 at 20:07, Dirk Bartley wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 2007-08-20 at 08:04 -0400, Dan Langille wrote:
> > > >
> > > > There are basically three queries. One to get a list of directories,
> > > > another to get a list of files and one t
On 21 Aug 2007 at 20:07, Dirk Bartley wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-08-20 at 08:04 -0400, Dan Langille wrote:
> > >
> > > There are basically three queries. One to get a list of directories,
> > > another to get a list of files and one to get a list of versions for a
> > > specific file.
> > >
> > > 1.
On Sunday 19 August 2007 18:35, Dirk Bartley wrote:
> Hello
>
> Now that 2.2.0 is released, I've had the opportunity to use bat in my
> work environment. It worked generally as hoped with one major
> exception. The catalog browser. slow slow slow.
Yes, in some cases, this is my experience too.
On Mon, 2007-08-20 at 08:04 -0400, Dan Langille wrote:
> >
> > There are basically three queries. One to get a list of directories,
> > another to get a list of files and one to get a list of versions for a
> > specific file.
> >
> > 1. To get a list of directories given a list of jobs. Here is
Hi, I'm interfering in the discussion as I've worked with Eric on brestore
(doing the SQL part), doing something looking a lot like what you're doing
now. My comments are inline
Le Monday 20 August 2007 03:47:15 Dirk Bartley, vous avez écrit :
> On Sun, 2007-08-19 at 13:06 -0400, Dan Langille w
On 19 Aug 2007 at 21:47, Dirk Bartley wrote:
> On Sun, 2007-08-19 at 13:06 -0400, Dan Langille wrote:
> > On 19 Aug 2007 at 12:35, Dirk Bartley wrote:
> >=20
> > > There is one alternative index to the above. The index of the two
> > > colums (FilenameId, JobId) is really only needed for the cond
On Sun, 2007-08-19 at 13:06 -0400, Dan Langille wrote:
> On 19 Aug 2007 at 12:35, Dirk Bartley wrote:
>
> > There is one alternative index to the above. The index of the two
> > colums (FilenameId, JobId) is really only needed for the condition of
> > FilenameId = (SELECT FilenameId FROM Filename
On 19 Aug 2007 at 12:35, Dirk Bartley wrote:
> There is one alternative index to the above. The index of the two
> colums (FilenameId, JobId) is really only needed for the condition of
> FilenameId = (SELECT FilenameId FROM Filename WHERE name=''). A
> subquery can't be used when creating an ind
44 matches
Mail list logo
