Re: ordered indexing for integers

["Gavin Henry" <ghenry@suretecsystems.com>]

<quote who="Howard Chu">
> Aaron Richton wrote:
>> Agreed that this would be a useful addition (I've run into/designed
>> around
>> this a couple times). To answer "is it a big deal that we lose binary
>> compat with RE23," I don't consider that a strong issue at all. We
>> always
>> tell people to slapcat/slapadd as part of a release change, and this
>> would
>> be covered in that recommendation. My bigger concern would be what the
>> 2.4.6 -> 2.4.7 (or whenever this hits) procedure would look like. i.e.,
>> are you proposing dropping read support for the RE23-style databases, so
>> that a 2.4.6 -> 2.4.7 would require a 2.4.6 slapcat? Users might not be
>> used to that.
>
> Yes, dropping support for RE23 format index files.
>
> In fact you would only need to run slapindex to regenerate them, and it
> would
> only be needed if you have presence indexing enabled on general
> attributes, or
> equality indexing on integer attributes. Since presence indexing is
> typically
> not too useful to begin with, I think this is a small enough issue that we
> can
> cover it in the 2.4.7 release announcement.

And a wee note in the Upgrading/Migrating section of the Admin Guide.
Saying  that, 2.3.x -> 2.4.x will be a slapcat, so maybe no point.

Gavin.