Hi Kern,
I did notice the difference when looking at the two installs I have
here. Here is the output from the two;
Debian Sarge 3.1 Bacula 1.36.2 (installed from the debian stable tree)
+-------+------------+------------+--------------+-------------+-----------+-------------+----------+--------+------+------------+---------+
| Table | Non_unique | Key_name | Seq_in_index | Column_name |
Collation | Cardinality | Sub_part | Packed | Null | Index_type | Comment |
+-------+------------+------------+--------------+-------------+-----------+-------------+----------+--------+------+------------+---------+
| File | 0 | PRIMARY | 1 | FileId |
A | 26781364 | NULL | NULL | | BTREE | |
| File | 1 | FilenameId | 1 | FilenameId |
A | 653204 | NULL | NULL | | BTREE | |
| File | 1 | FilenameId | 2 | PathId |
A | 686701 | NULL | NULL | | BTREE | |
+-------+------------+------------+--------------+-------------+-----------+-------------+----------+--------+------+------------+---------+
Debian Sarge 3.1 Bacula 1.38.5 (installed from source)
+-------+------------+----------+--------------+-------------+-----------+-------------+----------+--------+------+------------+---------+
| Table | Non_unique | Key_name | Seq_in_index | Column_name | Collation
| Cardinality | Sub_part | Packed | Null | Index_type | Comment |
+-------+------------+----------+--------------+-------------+-----------+-------------+----------+--------+------+------------+---------+
| File | 0 | PRIMARY | 1 | FileId | A
| 0 | NULL | NULL | | BTREE | |
| File | 1 | JobId | 1 | JobId | A
| NULL | NULL | NULL | | BTREE | |
| File | 1 | JobId_2 | 1 | JobId | A
| NULL | NULL | NULL | | BTREE | |
| File | 1 | JobId_2 | 2 | PathId | A
| NULL | NULL | NULL | | BTREE | |
| File | 1 | JobId_2 | 3 | FilenameId | A
| NULL | NULL | NULL | | BTREE | |
+-------+------------+----------+--------------+-------------+-----------+-------------+----------+--------+------+------------+---------+
Can anyone else running Debian Sarge 3.1 and the package in the debian
stable tree confirm my findings? If they can then I'm quite concerned
that this installation will have been deployed to clients. Is there an
easy way to add the missing indexes to the default install?
Thanks,
Gavin Conway
--
UKS Ltd, Birmingham Road, Studley, Warwickshire, B80 7BG
Tel: 08700 681 333 - Fax: 01527 851 301 - AS: 20547
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - www.uksolutions.co.uk
Kern Sibbald wrote:
Hello Gavin,
I suspect that you might be experiencing some serious performance problems. A more
appropriate set of indicies is probably something like what I have:
mysql> show indexes from File;
+-------+------------+----------+--------------+-------------+-----------+-------------+----------+--------+------+------------+---------+
| Table | Non_unique | Key_name | Seq_in_index | Column_name | Collation |
Cardinality | Sub_part | Packed | Null | Index_type | Comment |
+-------+------------+----------+--------------+-------------+-----------+-------------+----------+--------+------+------------+---------+
| File | 0 | PRIMARY | 1 | FileId | A |
1345013 | NULL | NULL | | BTREE | |
| File | 1 | JobId | 1 | JobId | A |
NULL | NULL | NULL | | BTREE | |
| File | 1 | JobId_2 | 1 | JobId | A |
NULL | NULL | NULL | | BTREE | |
| File | 1 | JobId_2 | 2 | PathId | A |
NULL | NULL | NULL | | BTREE | |
| File | 1 | JobId_2 | 3 | FilenameId | A |
NULL | NULL | NULL | | BTREE | |
+-------+------------+----------+--------------+-------------+-----------+-------------+----------+--------+------+------------+---------+
5 rows in set (0.00 sec)
which is the "default" installation.
On Tuesday 21 March 2006 18:14, Gavin Conway wrote:
Barry,
This may be of some use;
mysql> show indexes from File;
+-------+------------+------------+--------------+-------------+-----------
+-------------+----------+--------+------+------------+---------+
| Table | Non_unique | Key_name | Seq_in_index | Column_name | Collation
| Cardinality | Sub_part | Packed | Null | Index_type | Comment |
+-------+------------+------------+--------------+-------------+-----------
+-------------+----------+--------+------+------------+---------+
| File | 0 | PRIMARY | 1 | FileId | A | 25687365 | NULL | NULL | | BTREE |
| | File | 1 | FilenameId | 1 | FilenameId | A | 626521 | NULL | NULL | |
BTREE | |
| File | 1 | FilenameId | 2 | PathId | A | 658650 | NULL | NULL | |
BTREE | |
+-------+------------+------------+--------------+-------------+-----------
+-------------+----------+--------+------+------------+---------+ 3 rows in
set (0.00 sec)
mysql>
Regards,
Gavin Conway
Barry Benowitz wrote:
Hi All,
I am starting to notice performance problems on my bacula setup. Some
nights it backs up around 25G in 2 Hours, Last night it is still
running after 8 hours for the same 25G. Reading the manual told me to
check the indexes and I see that there are some set (5 of them) but
they don’t seem to have the name mentioned. Would someone using MySQL
post what an appropriate result from a show index from File command
should be?
Thanks,
Barry
Barry Benowitz
Raritan Computer
(732) 764 8886 x1362
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a groundbreaking scripting language
that extends applications into web and mobile media. Attend the live webcast
and join the prime developer group breaking into this new coding territory!
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=110944&bid=241720&dat=121642
_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
