Some things that come to mind:
- Force the use of a preference server, force the value of max
returned entries to 1000 or the likes
- Set a hard limit on the server for the max number of entries
returned from a get...
- Don't give users access to search regular forms (front-end things
with display only forms)

Axton Grams

On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 3:25 PM, Kaiser Norm E CIV USAF 96 CS/SCCE
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> **
>
> Hi everyone:
>
>
>
> I wanted to get everyone's take on this thorny issue…I know this matter has
> been discussed many times before, but I wanted to put a new twist on it.
>
>
>
> Specifically, I wanted to get anyone and everyone's thoughts on the problem
> of unqualified searches in a large enterprise.  Specifically, suppose the
> following: Suppose you have a custom app being used in a very large
> environment.  Suppose in that environment you have established a ticket
> isolation system by setting hidden fields on the form on SEARCH.  Tickets
> are isolated by every company within the enterprise.
>
>
>
> Now, each company has in excess of 150,000 tickets, and there are 20
> companies.  The problem is, techs are accidentally clicking the SEARCH
> button without any qualification…kicking off what is *seemingly* an
> unqualified search.  But the search is not truly unqualified because fields
> are getting set on SEARCH to effect the ticket isolation.  But the problem
> remains – such a search goes out and attempts to fetch 150,000+ tickets.
> Several techs accidentally doing this at once (we have 800+ techs, so the
> possibility of techs doing this is pretty high) causes the server to slow
> way down.
>
>
>
> Thoughts on how to minimize this issue? Hopefully I've described the problem
> well enough.
>
>
>
> TIA,
>
> Norm
>
> __Platinum Sponsor: www.rmsportal.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"
> html___

_______________________________________________________________________________
UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org
Platinum Sponsor: www.rmsportal.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"

Reply via email to