Warren, I can verify that he 1=2 nomenclature, as late as 7.6.04 triggers a table scan in SQL Server 2008. My recommendation would actually be to setup a new thread for the escalation server, and put an escalation on that new thread configured to cut the size of the audit log down to a manageable size, and let it run. The nature of the escalation server will make it so that the server will be busy, yes, but not so busy as to take it down, the fact that it's running on its own thread will mean that none of your other escalations will be impacted...it'll likely take many days to cut the numbers down, but it'll do it properly.
The only other suggestion involves building an api app that'll do it in chunks 'periodically', but that may not be an option for you. -----Original Message----- From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of Warren R. Baltimore II Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2012 8:04 AM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: HUMONGOUS table ** ARS 6.3 patch 16 ITSM 5.5 Oracle 10 Solaris I've got an audit trail table that has been quietly working for about 8 years now. We started seeing an issue about a month ago that is related to our AST:Asset table. Whenever a change is made and someone is associated with an asset, the system grinds to a halt. Usually, the change will timeout, but it will update. The problem is that at least once a day (usually in the morning) we will get a malloc error. For some reason, the server is not recycling itself when this happens so I have to do it. I've run all sorts of logs, and have come to the conclusion that it's the push field to the audit file that is causing the problems. The Filter was built using the old 1=0 trigger. I believe that this is triggering a table scan against the Audit Trail. The Audit Trail was never built to clean itself up and it has over 57 MILLION records! Anybody have any idea on a quick, easy, surgical method for knocking this thing down to a more manageable size without killing my server? Also, I know that in later versions, the need to use 1=0 went away. Any ideas if it was still neccesary in 6.3? I've tried the alternate method, but have not had success. Thanks in advance! -- Warren R. Baltimore II Remedy Developer 410-533-5367 _attend WWRUG12 www.wwrug.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"_ _______________________________________________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org attend wwrug12 www.wwrug12.com ARSList: "Where the Answers Are"
