[Fedora-directory-users] Search optimization?

[Vsevolod (Simon) Ilyushchenko]

Hi,

I've noticed that FDS is significantly slower in answering queries than 
openldap. If I run 'ls -l /home' on the list of 64 home directories 
whose owners are all different, I get the list back in 1 second if I use 
openldap. Version 7 of FDS took 16 seconds, and FDS 1.0.2 takes 12 seconds.

The docs mention increasing cache sides to improve performance, but my 
cache is set to 10 M, which seems to be large enough, and the timing 
does not improve if I run 'ls -l' repeatedly. Is there anything else I 
can tune?

Thanks,
Simon
-- 

Simon (Vsevolod ILyushchenko)   simonf(a)cshl.edu
				http://www.simonf.com

"Think like a man of action, act like a man of thought."

		         Henri Bergson

[George Holbert]

It sounds like you might have some unindexed searches.
You should be able to confirm by examining the FDS log files after doing 
your ls runs.

Vsevolod (Simon) Ilyushchenko wrote:
>  Hi,
>
>  I've noticed that FDS is significantly slower in answering queries 
>  than openldap. If I run 'ls -l /home' on the list of 64 home 
>  directories whose owners are all different, I get the list back in 1 
>  second if I use openldap. Version 7 of FDS took 16 seconds, and FDS 
>  1.0.2 takes 12 seconds.
>
>  The docs mention increasing cache sides to improve performance, but my 
>  cache is set to 10 M, which seems to be large enough, and the timing 
>  does not improve if I run 'ls -l' repeatedly. Is there anything else I 
>  can tune?
>
>  Thanks,
>  Simon

[Nathan Kinder]

Vsevolod (Simon) Ilyushchenko wrote:

>  Hi,
>
>  I've noticed that FDS is significantly slower in answering queries 
>  than openldap. If I run 'ls -l /home' on the list of 64 home 
>  directories whose owners are all different, I get the list back in 1 
>  second if I use openldap. Version 7 of FDS took 16 seconds, and FDS 
>  1.0.2 takes 12 seconds.
>
>  The docs mention increasing cache sides to improve performance, but my 
>  cache is set to 10 M, which seems to be large enough, and the timing 
>  does not improve if I run 'ls -l' repeatedly. Is there anything else I 
>  can tune? 
It sounds like the search is against an unindexed attribute.  I'd take a 
look at the search in your access log and check if it says "NOTES=U".  
If so, that means that it is an unindexed search.  You would need to 
create the proper indexes for the search to improve the performance.

-NGK

>  Thanks,
>  Simon

[Vsevolod (Simon) Ilyushchenko]

Bingo! Down to 2 seconds! I had to add indexes on uidNumber and gidNumber.

Thanks,
Simon

Nathan Kinder wrote on 04/10/2006 04:07 PM:
>  Vsevolod (Simon) Ilyushchenko wrote:
>  
> > Hi,
> >
> > I've noticed that FDS is significantly slower in answering queries 
> > than openldap. If I run 'ls -l /home' on the list of 64 home 
> > directories whose owners are all different, I get the list back in 1 
> > second if I use openldap. Version 7 of FDS took 16 seconds, and FDS 
> > 1.0.2 takes 12 seconds.
> >
> > The docs mention increasing cache sides to improve performance, but my 
> > cache is set to 10 M, which seems to be large enough, and the timing 
> > does not improve if I run 'ls -l' repeatedly. Is there anything else I 
> > can tune?
>  
>  
>  It sounds like the search is against an unindexed attribute.  I'd take a 
>  look at the search in your access log and check if it says "NOTES=U".  
>  If so, that means that it is an unindexed search.  You would need to 
>  create the proper indexes for the search to improve the performance.
>  
>  -NGK
>  
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Simon
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  
>  --
>  Fedora-directory-users mailing list
>  Fedora-directory-users(a)redhat.com
>  https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-directory-users 
-- 

Simon (Vsevolod ILyushchenko)   simonf(a)cshl.edu
				http://www.simonf.com

"Think like a man of action, act like a man of thought."

		         Henri Bergson

[Mike Jackson]

Vsevolod (Simon) Ilyushchenko wrote:
>  Bingo! Down to 2 seconds! I had to add indexes on uidNumber and
> gidNumber. 
Those two should be default indexes, IMO.

--
mike