[rt-users] RT2 Database design...

[David C. Troy]

> What are you running RT's database on now?  How much proccessor? How much ram?
> Are there specific operations that are slower?  Does mysql's slow-queries
> log show anything interesting?

One 800MHz PIII, 768MB, IDE disks;  nothing is so slow that it could be
considered really problematic, and I'm confident that throwing hardware
at it would improve it somewhat.  The slowest stuff just seems to be
'searches' (I use that generically -- even clicking on the 'canned' queue
lists on 'Home' takes a few fractions of a second longer than you'd like).

I use the same box for other DB things and it performs perfectly
reasonably.  I have one table that's about 1.6GB and well indexed, for the
operations I do with it, it performs really well.

> It might be worth looking at mysql's regular query log and feeding some
> of the queries that look like they're taking a long time to mysql(1)'s
> "EXPLAIN" to see if it appears to need better indices.

I'll give this a shot.  Just wondered if you had a feeling like, "Hm, I
guess I could have indexed such & such a field -- never thought someone
would have a DB that big."

> Another option is an RT data-warehousing tool that will move old archived
> informational tickets out of the core database to somewhere else
> that's still searchable and accessable, so it doesn't impact performance
> as much.
>
> Depending on which operations are slow, optimizing RT2 might or might
> not be the right call.  You may simply be pushing mysql's limits.
> I don't know whether oracle or postgres will scale better, but those
> may also be options.

Yep -- all good thoughts.  Will see what I can come up with.

Dave


>         -j
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 16, 2001 at 08:18:44AM -0400, David C. Troy wrote:
> >
> > Hey folks, probably more Jesse than others:
> >
> > I find that for our purposes RT2 is a little slower to respond (in the web
> > gui) than RT1.  My Attachments table has grown to be > 2GB in size and I
> > think this is slowing access to the entire RT system somewhat.  We have
> > about 50,000 archived tickets and we sort of want to keep them.
> >
> > I think the design of RT2 is vastly superior to RT1, however I'm sad it's
> > slower right now.  I have basically two choices that I see:  1) throw more
> > hardware at it, 2) look to optimizing RT2
> >
> > So, my question is -- what indexing, if any, exists on the Attachments
> > table, and secondly, what fields does anybody (Jesse) think would gain
> > performance from additional indexing?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Dave
> >
> > =====================================================================
> > David C. Troy   [dave at toad.net]                   410-544-6193 Sales
> > ToadNet - Want to go fast?                        410-544-1329 FAX
> > 570 Ritchie Highway, Severna Park, MD 21146-2925  www.toad.net
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > rt-users mailing list
> > rt-users at lists.fsck.com
> > http://lists.fsck.com/mailman/listinfo/rt-users
> >
>
> --
> jesse reed vincent -- root at eruditorum.org -- jesse at fsck.com
> 70EBAC90: 2A07 FC22 7DB4 42C1 9D71 0108 41A3 3FB3 70EB AC90
>
> I have images of Marc in well worn combat fatigues, covered in mud,
> sweat and blood, knife in one hand and PSION int he other, being
> restrained by several other people, screaming "Let me at it!
> Just let me at it!"  Eichin standing calmly by with something
> automated, milspec, and likely recoilless.
> 				-xiphmont on opensource peer review
>
> _______________________________________________
> rt-users mailing list
> rt-users at lists.fsck.com
> http://lists.fsck.com/mailman/listinfo/rt-users
>