When upgrading to CMDB 7.6p1 you receive a warning saying that you need
to remove any indexes prior to upgrade so keep that in mind as well.

 

From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList)
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Lyle Taylor
Sent: Friday, March 12, 2010 1:58 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Audit Log data

 

** 

I have two indexes on the form.  One on "Original Request ID" and
another on "Log Key 1".  Log Key 1 is probably more significant, because
I believe that's the field that gets joined to when viewing the Audit
Log in the application.

 

Lyle

 

From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList)
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Chowdhury, Tauf
Sent: Friday, March 12, 2010 12:49 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Audit Log data

 

** 

What field did you add an index on? 

 

Tauf Chowdhury | Forest Laboratories, Inc.

Analyst, Service Management

Mobile:646.483.2779

 

From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList)
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Lyle Taylor
Sent: Friday, March 12, 2010 2:46 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Audit Log data

 

** 

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.

 

_Platinum Sponsor: [email protected] ARSlist: "Where the Answers
Are"_ 

________________________________

This e-mail and its attachments may contain Forest Laboratories, Inc.
proprietary information that is privileged, confidential or subject to
copyright belonging to Forest Laboratories, Inc. This e-mail is intended
solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed.
If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, or the employee or
agent responsible for delivering this e-mail to the intended recipient,
you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying or
action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this
e-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received
this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and
permanently delete the original and any copy of this e-mail and any
printout.

_Platinum Sponsor: [email protected] ARSlist: "Where the Answers
Are"_ 

_Platinum Sponsor: [email protected] ARSlist: "Where the Answers
Are"_ 


_______________________________________________________________________________
UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org
attend wwrug10 www.wwrug.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"

Reply via email to