Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

grouper-dev - Re: [grouper-dev] RE: [grouper-users] Grouper Performance and UI Questions

Subject: Grouper Developers Forum

List archive

Re: [grouper-dev] RE: [grouper-users] Grouper Performance and UI Questions


Chronological Thread 
  • 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
<>
wrote:
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.

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.16.

Top of Page