On Fri, 19 Nov 2010, Mikael Fridh wrote: > The FUD stops here, this is pointless in the case of (where this > discussion started) restore performance on a MySQL back-end.
In terms of restore performance, you're right. Better optimised queries would speed things up, but probably not by much (see below: Bacula-dir is the major factor on large restores) > Pulling 5 million files out in one flat list is equally stupid to (or, > rather in this case, a simplification) storing 5 million files in an > unhashed directory structure. I _have_ users who do that. (arrgh!) > As soon as you see subqueries like these run against a MySQL server it > is obvious it was not designed for MySQL and/or performance. In both cases (mysql or postgres) the actual query is relatively fast for 1-2 million file backups, but then bacula-dir itself grinds on the results for quite some time and it's memory-intensive while doing it. I've pointed Kern at alternatives to red/black tables which will probably speed that side up, but optimised queries are always a good idea. > Frankly I don't know at this point how to make it better without > restructuring the database and actually avoiding pulling out millions > of millions of records at once. If you can make a better mousetrap, Kern (and a lot of other people) will probably thank you - even if it takes a major revision release to change the database format. FWIW, the EXPLAIN is just as ugly on postgres. AB ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Beautiful is writing same markup. Internet Explorer 9 supports standards for HTML5, CSS3, SVG 1.1, ECMAScript5, and DOM L2 & L3. Spend less time writing and rewriting code and more time creating great experiences on the web. Be a part of the beta today http://p.sf.net/sfu/msIE9-sfdev2dev _______________________________________________ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
