The Email message error form needed an index on message id.....This was missing OOB On Monday, June 4, 2012 6:42:06 PM UTC-5, Thad Esser wrote:
> ** > Hello, > > We are reviewing the customizations we did for CMDB 2.1 in preparation for > an upgrade to 7.6.04. Way back when, an index was added on the Name field > of BaseElement to improve CI search speeds for our customers. I remember > thinking at the time that it was odd that it wasn't already there and I see > its still not there for 7.6.04. Which makes me wonder if that is a BMC > oversight, or if it is by design and we are misunderstanding the purpose of > the Name field and best practices for searching for CIs? Is there a reason > we DON'T want to be using that field for searching or any reason that I > shouldn't re-add the index? > > Any thoughts are appreciated. > > Thanks, > Thad > (Oracle database if that changes the response somehow) > _attend WWRUG12 www.wwrug.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"_ On Monday, June 4, 2012 6:42:06 PM UTC-5, Thad Esser wrote: > > ** > Hello, > > We are reviewing the customizations we did for CMDB 2.1 in preparation for > an upgrade to 7.6.04. Way back when, an index was added on the Name field > of BaseElement to improve CI search speeds for our customers. I remember > thinking at the time that it was odd that it wasn't already there and I see > its still not there for 7.6.04. Which makes me wonder if that is a BMC > oversight, or if it is by design and we are misunderstanding the purpose of > the Name field and best practices for searching for CIs? Is there a reason > we DON'T want to be using that field for searching or any reason that I > shouldn't re-add the index? > > Any thoughts are appreciated. > > Thanks, > Thad > (Oracle database if that changes the response somehow) > _attend WWRUG12 www.wwrug.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"_ On Monday, June 4, 2012 6:42:06 PM UTC-5, Thad Esser wrote: > > ** > Hello, > > We are reviewing the customizations we did for CMDB 2.1 in preparation for > an upgrade to 7.6.04. Way back when, an index was added on the Name field > of BaseElement to improve CI search speeds for our customers. I remember > thinking at the time that it was odd that it wasn't already there and I see > its still not there for 7.6.04. Which makes me wonder if that is a BMC > oversight, or if it is by design and we are misunderstanding the purpose of > the Name field and best practices for searching for CIs? Is there a reason > we DON'T want to be using that field for searching or any reason that I > shouldn't re-add the index? > > Any thoughts are appreciated. > > Thanks, > Thad > (Oracle database if that changes the response somehow) > _attend WWRUG12 www.wwrug.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"_ On Monday, June 4, 2012 6:42:06 PM UTC-5, Thad Esser wrote: > > ** > Hello, > > We are reviewing the customizations we did for CMDB 2.1 in preparation for > an upgrade to 7.6.04. Way back when, an index was added on the Name field > of BaseElement to improve CI search speeds for our customers. I remember > thinking at the time that it was odd that it wasn't already there and I see > its still not there for 7.6.04. Which makes me wonder if that is a BMC > oversight, or if it is by design and we are misunderstanding the purpose of > the Name field and best practices for searching for CIs? Is there a reason > we DON'T want to be using that field for searching or any reason that I > shouldn't re-add the index? > > Any thoughts are appreciated. > > Thanks, > Thad > (Oracle database if that changes the response somehow) > _attend WWRUG12 www.wwrug.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"_ On Monday, June 4, 2012 6:42:06 PM UTC-5, Thad Esser wrote: > > ** > Hello, > > We are reviewing the customizations we did for CMDB 2.1 in preparation for > an upgrade to 7.6.04. Way back when, an index was added on the Name field > of BaseElement to improve CI search speeds for our customers. I remember > thinking at the time that it was odd that it wasn't already there and I see > its still not there for 7.6.04. Which makes me wonder if that is a BMC > oversight, or if it is by design and we are misunderstanding the purpose of > the Name field and best practices for searching for CIs? Is there a reason > we DON'T want to be using that field for searching or any reason that I > shouldn't re-add the index? > > Any thoughts are appreciated. > > Thanks, > Thad > (Oracle database if that changes the response somehow) > _attend WWRUG12 www.wwrug.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"_ On Monday, June 4, 2012 6:42:06 PM UTC-5, Thad Esser wrote: > > ** > Hello, > > We are reviewing the customizations we did for CMDB 2.1 in preparation for > an upgrade to 7.6.04. Way back when, an index was added on the Name field > of BaseElement to improve CI search speeds for our customers. I remember > thinking at the time that it was odd that it wasn't already there and I see > its still not there for 7.6.04. Which makes me wonder if that is a BMC > oversight, or if it is by design and we are misunderstanding the purpose of > the Name field and best practices for searching for CIs? Is there a reason > we DON'T want to be using that field for searching or any reason that I > shouldn't re-add the index? > > Any thoughts are appreciated. > > Thanks, > Thad > (Oracle database if that changes the response somehow) > _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"
