phlipdascrip wrote:out of curiosity, what did you change?
Montana Matt wrote:I eliminated a query that was happening on every page load. The data that was being saved wasn't absolutely necessary.
phlipdascrip wrote:* did you check if access logs are being kept? this is an unnecessary disk I/O evil as well.
phlipdascrip wrote:since you mention an outdated DB, making sure proper keys and indexes are set on tables can make a huge difference on queries. are you keeping a slow query log?
phlipdascrip wrote:tweaking the last ms out of frequently run queries themselves can also make quite the difference.
phlipdascrip wrote:is there static (config..) data that you could move from the db to static code (e.g. arrays)? memcache is prolly too much work to set up properly.
Montana Matt wrote:Yes access logs are kept and getting rid of them probably isn't going to happen.
Montana Matt wrote:It's not that the database is outdated. It's that it has grown so large that the storage engine we use for the main table isn't a good choice anymore.
Montana Matt wrote:phlipdascrip wrote:tweaking the last ms out of frequently run queries themselves can also make quite the difference.
I don't know what "ms" is in that sentence. But frequently run queries have been optimized quite well at this point.
phlipdascrip wrote:why not? aren't error logs sufficient?
phlipdascrip wrote:I see. is the page content stored in the DB? did you consider writing it to files instead? plain text or xml, for example (e.g. [object ID].xml and then nodes for the different page sections). wouldn't that reduce the table size by what 90%? easily?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests