Re: openldap-2.2.13 indexes

[Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah@stanford.edu>]

--On Wednesday, June 16, 2004 9:16 AM -0400 Kirk Turner-Rustin 
<ktrustin@owu.edu> wrote:

> On Wed, 16 Jun 2004, Janis Pinkis wrote:
>
> > Hi!
> >
> > I have just started to play with 2.2 and bdb backed (so far i was using
> > 2.1 with ldbm). My question is about bdb cache size. In post and faq's i
> > have found out that index files must be in hash format and the id2entry
> > and dn2id in btree format. But acording mu db_stat all my index files
> > are in btree format. Am i doing something wrong?
>
> Indexes were changed from hash to btree around OpenLDAP 2.2.6,
> I think. Someone (Darin Broady?) posted a pragma for changing it
> back to hash some time ago. Search the archives if you need to do
> that for some reason.

That's correct.  Btree indices are remarkably faster when performing 
indexing over hashes (I did a series of tests comparing differences between 
the two at one point).

Note: The results on the pages listed below are for much older versions of 
OpenLDAP in both the 2.1 (2.1.25) and 2.2 (2.2.5)series than what is 
available now, and are simply provided to display the differences between 
hash and btree indices.

<http://www.stanford.edu/~quanah/directories/statistics/solaris/replica/slapadd-hash.html>
<http://www.stanford.edu/~quanah/directories/statistics/solaris/replica/slapindex-hash.html>
<http://www.stanford.edu/~quanah/directories/statistics/solaris/replica/performance-hash.html>

--Quanah

--
Quanah Gibson-Mount
Principal Software Developer
ITSS/Shared Services
Stanford University
GnuPG Public Key: http://www.stanford.edu/~quanah/pgp.html