[ic] Rolling big tables (mysql)
emailgrant at gmail.com
Thu May 24 10:15:53 EDT 2007
> > > > I do keep a separate table of robot UAs and match traffic rows to them
> > > > with op=eq to populate another table with robot IPs and non-robot IPs
> > > > for the day to speed up the report. Don't you think it would be
> > > > slower to match/no-match each IC request to a known robot UA and write
> > > > to the traffic table based on that, instead of unconditionally writing
> > > > all requests to the traffic table? If not, excluding the robot
> > > > requests from the traffic table would mean a lot less processing for
> > > > the report and a lot fewer records for the traffic table.
> > > >
> > > Perhaps you should create a column called "spider" in the traffic table
> > > and save a true or false value depending upon the [data session spider]
> > > value. You can then generate reports "WHERE spider = 0", for ordinary
> > > users, or "WHERE spider = 1" for robots etc. An index on the spider column
> > > would be nice, of course.
> > I let this roll around in my head for quite a while and I ended up
> > writing the IC page accesses to my traffic table based on [data
> > session spider] like you suggested. This should mean a much smaller
> > traffic table and less processing when running a report on it. We'll
> > see how much time it buys me before running the report takes too long
> > again. I also need to set up indexes.
> Also, you may as well grab the latest robots.cfg file from CVS and
> "include" it into your interchange.cfg file.
I just had a look at robots.cfg and I think I see a few opportunities
for false positives. I would think "agent" could be bad, and there
are browser toolbars for GetRight and Yahoo which probably alter the
UA. Is there a crucial set of NotRobotUA entries to go along with
Is anyone using robots.cfg and actively watching for false positives?
More information about the interchange-users