On Sunday 26 August 2007 09:17, Marc Cousin wrote: > On Sunday 26 August 2007 07:43:25 Kern Sibbald wrote: > > Hello Marc, > > > > I don't yet understand the details of how you use these tables, but it > > seems to me that we could modify the Bacula table structure as follows: > > > > - Split the File table into two new tables: > > - Files containing only file entries > > - Dirs containing the equivalent of a current File entry for > > each directory, except that it would have a pointer to the > > parent Path entry, and possibly a pointer to the parent Dirs > > entry (however that entry may not exist in each backup). > > If necessary we could add the visibility flag -- I don't see its > > use yet. > > For the visibility flag, it may not be that easy : a directory may be > visible even if it's not in a backup. For instance, /home if /home/marc is > backuped should be displayed, so we add an entry from /home in > pathvisibility for the job where /home/marc is backed up.
Isn't the visibility rather easily deduced from the first path in the backup? > > > This would separate the Bacula File and Directory entries making for a > > lot of efficiency when one just wants the directory structure. It is > > something that Bacula could easily do (I think) when inserting the > > records, and we can add a few additional links. The fact of splitting > > the File table in two means that the new Files table no longer needs the > > PathId link, which could be reused to point to the Dirs table. Thus we > > would be adding very little extra data space to the tables. Of course, > > there would be new index files but that happens in any case. > > > > Do you think this could work out? > > > >From the database point of view, I it would be right to separate dirs and > > files : they are really different objects with different properties. And > > it would make it faster and more efficient to navigate the tree if their > > entries were separated. The only problem I see is building the link > > between the directories and their subdirectories during backup : it may > > be a lot of work at that moment, slowing down the backups (I'll discuss > > it with Eric, he knows this code quite well now) From the database point > > of view, I it would be right to separate dirs and files : they are really > > different objects with different properties. And it would make it faster > > and more efficient to navigate the tree if their entries were separated. > > The only problem I see is building the link between the directories and > > their subdirectories during backup : it may be a lot of work at that > > moment, slowing down the backups (I'll discuss it with Eric, he knows > > this code quite well now) > > > > > > > > By the way, I will be gone for the next two days, so I won't be able to > > respond until Tuesday ... > > > > Best regards, > > > > Kern ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ _______________________________________________ Bacula-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-devel
