Subject: Grouper Developers Forum
Re: [grouper-dev] RE: [grouper-users] Grouper Performance and UI Questions
- From: "blair christensen." <>
- To: ,
- Subject: Re: [grouper-dev] RE: [grouper-users] Grouper Performance and UI Questions
- Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 11:02:50 -0500
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth; b=pCtwbkDUiOjMr/Yq7Ny+lHd3LAaC9vZV3aJPYTR36qjq8xk6/jf12sv1xwoDQHZXSNSiyD0lf0kc9OivQnX4n9IuHwLtfbfPdP94rGF1Cnbp0hwNN8wBYy/zJa/BuCa33sDNTIrHz55VY79rCDwDWQD068Kiy3dSi2QqwNUSCEA=
On 5/29/07, Cramton, James
This table has 1.3 million records, for our 12,000 groups with 500,000
memberships. Many tasks in our 2 main use cases (group provisioning and
the MACE Grouper UI navigation) were causing full table scans on this
field. After implementing this change, we saw an improvement of more
than 90% in most of these queries. We are still analyzing the impact of
the addition of the index on inserts and updates, but we expect the
impact will be trivial.
I've added this index to HEAD. It will probably cause a small
performance hit on writes but the query performance, especially on
tables the size of yours, should more than make up for it.
Thanks for pointing this out.
- RE: [grouper-users] Grouper Performance and UI Questions, Cramton, James, 05/29/2007
- Re: [grouper-dev] RE: [grouper-users] Grouper Performance and UI Questions, blair christensen., 05/31/2007
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.16.