Yep, I noticed that too. That's a nasty omission IMO. In our case, adding an index took it down to subsecond query times when viewing the audit log.
Lyle From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Matt Reinfeldt Sent: Friday, March 12, 2010 12:39 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Audit Log data ** As an aside... has anyone else noticed that OOB these forms have no indexes? So, if you have a large number of Incidents with lots of activity and you try to 'View Audit Log', it may take a while to open up (I've seen up to 45 seconds or more!).... Adding a single index to the underlying HPD:HelpDesk_AuditLogSystem form will bring that back down to a manageable time (< 1-3 seconds). I honestly haven't checked in 7.5 or 7.6, though, to see if that was cleaned up. Anyway, Happy Friday everyone! Matt R. From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ramey, Anne Sent: Friday, March 12, 2010 12:55 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Audit Log data ** If you truly do not use it, then don't bring it over. You are right that imports should create a new audit record for those entries, so nothing should be broken by not importing the old data. You just lose that information. Anne Ramey From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of strauss Sent: Friday, March 12, 2010 1:44 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Audit Log data ** We are in the process of testing the move of all necessary data from an ITSM 7.0 system to an ITSM 7.6 system, which we will have to do again or at least update prior to moving the 7.6 system into production. Several of the tables with data are the three aliased identically (by some clueless BMC programmer(s)) as "HelpDesk System Audit Log" - they are really CTM:AuditLogSystem, HPD:HelpDesk_AuditLogSystem, and CHG:ChangeRequest_AuditLogSystem. The HPD one has 193 K records, and the CTM one has over 2 million records. We don't use Change enough for those records to matter (138 of them). Does anyone have a feel for how abandon-able this data is??? We have been studying it, and don't really see any utility in bringing it forward. We have never used it for anything, so I don't think we're going to miss it - unless doing so breaks something in the plumbing. The act of importing our CTM:People data generated one NEW CTM:AuditLogSystem record for every person imported or updated (rrrchive overwrite moved 214,966 records); bringing in the data from the source server would overwrite that, but why bother at all?? At this point, those 2 million-plus records look expendable to me. Any thoughts from the list?? Christopher Strauss, Ph.D. Call Tracking Administration Manager University of North Texas Computing & IT Center http://itsm.unt.edu/ _Platinum Sponsor: [email protected] ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"_ _Platinum Sponsor: [email protected] ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"_ _Platinum Sponsor: [email protected] ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"_ NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. _______________________________________________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org attend wwrug10 www.wwrug.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"
