+1. Well put. No one is arguing against this other approach. The two efforts can be taken independently.
Carl On Jul 11, 2014 10:48 PM, "Mike Bayer" <mba...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On 7/11/14, 11:26 PM, Jay Pipes wrote: > > Yep, couldn't agree more. > > > > Frankly, the steps you outline in the wiki above are excellent > > examples of where we can make significant gains in both performance > > and scalability. In addition to those you listed, the underlying > > database schemas themselves, with the excessive use of large VARCHAR > > fields, BLOB fields for JSONified values, and the general bad strategy > > of bunching heavily-read fields with infrequently-read fields in the > > same tables, are also a source of poor overall database performance. > Well the topic of schema modifications I actually left out of that > document entirely for starters - I made a conscious choice to focus > entirely on things that don't involve any apps changing any of their > fundamental approaches or schemas...at least just yet! :) I'm hoping > that as oslo.db improves and the patterns start to roll out, we can > start working on schema design too. Because yeah I've seen the giant > lists of VARCHAR everything and just said, OK well we're going to have > to get to that..just not right now :). > > > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
