Re: [Sqlgrey-users] Re: sqlgrey easier data mining

[Michel B. <mi...@bo...>]

Le Vendredi 04 F=E9vrier 2005 21:18, Lionel Bouton a =E9crit :
>
> Seems to be a good thing to have, especially since it will be a small
> column that shouldn't put much stress on the database. Added to my TODO=
.
>
> >2. Addition: client_name
>
> I'm afraid this won't be so easy :
> - in the default 'smart' mode, most of the entries aren't IP address bu=
t
> class C networks.
> - a VARCHAR column with potentially very long names is not a welcomed
> addition : it could hurt performance badly.

I would vote YES for "first_seen" and "counter" columns in "awl" tables, =
and I=20
would vote NO for "client_name".

Not only "client_name" would be meaningless for all the class-C records, =
but=20
also a reverse DNS entry is something that can change over time. If we pu=
t a=20
client_name column, we should update it with the client_name Postfix give=
s=20
everytime we update a record. (note that we could very well put there the=
=20
last client_name seen even when we use a class-C entry type, as this woul=
d=20
still give an indication about the calling client).
But I'm not sure that having this in the tables would be very useful.

I would also vote YES for having the same field name for the IP in all th=
e=20
tables.

Adding columns to the tables rises the issue of upgrading : When upgradin=
g=20
from an oder version to a version with new columns, should the new column=
s be=20
initialized with arbitrary blank/zero or "today" values, or completely dr=
op=20
the existing tables and let them rebuild by themselves from scratch with =
new,=20
real data ?

Regards.

--=20
Michel Bouissou <mi...@bo...> OpenPGP ID 0xDDE8AC6E