Re: [Sqlgrey-users] Logging

[Rene J. <rg...@ba...>]

On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 11:16:08AM +0100, Lionel Bouton wrote:

> In 1.5.x there will be an index on connect.ip_addr. This is the most=20
> obvious one and greatly improved the load on a mysql database (see=20
> db_performance_reports).

Yeah, i know ;-)

> There could be some benefit for indices on the timestamp in the 3=20
> tables, but surprisingly it seems the cleanup process (which is the=20
> obvious target for timestamp related optimisations) didn't benefit much=
=20
> from it when tested. As adding indices slow the database writes I'm not=
=20
> considering adding timestamp ones yet (until someone brings test result=
s=20
> where the db_cleanup is reduced from say 5s to 0.5s when adding one of=20
> them for example).

I tried removing the index i had on connect.first_seen. It doesn't
really make a big difference, cleaning now takes 1-2 seconds instead of
0-1 seconds before removing it. Mysqld doesn't seem to use more CPU and
the queries in connect is executed in 0.00 seconds when performed
manually.

> 1.5.x won't start until February as I'll be skiing from Saturday until=20
> then and 1.4.x still has some TODOs.

Have you looked at the automatic whitelist updating? Or should i try
writing something using LWP. I guess the most reliable method is
fetching via HTTP and comparing MD5-sums afterwards. Or did you have
something different in mind?

--=20
-Ren=E9