[Date Prev][Date Next]
RE: broken indexing
I've got it all working again, but I wonder how smart it is to use it in
("name" pulls in many other attributeTypes that perhaps don't need
to be indexed.) When indices are stored due to subtyping, they're all
stored in a single database, whereas explicit indexing uses a separate
database per attribute. Since there are more hash keys being generated
within a single database/namespace, it's more likely that the keys computed
for different attributeTypes will collide. Then when you are searching
for only one specific attribute, you'll get back candidate lists that
combine entries that hashed many attributes together. test_filter will
sort it all out in the end, but it's not the most ideal way to use things.
-- Howard Chu
Chief Architect, Symas Corp. Director, Highland Sun
Symas: Premier OpenSource Development and Support
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kurt D. Zeilenga [mailto:Kurt@OpenLDAP.org]
> Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2002 5:58 PM
> To: Howard Chu
> Cc: openldap-devel@OpenLDAP.org
> Subject: Re: broken indexing
> I noticed this morning that supertype filtering worked in
> back-ldbm but not in back-bdb. Haven't figured out why.
> At 05:53 PM 2002-01-13, you wrote:
> >Something broke in the past 12 hours with subtype/supertype indexing.
> >databases configured with "index name <anything>" are no longer generating
> >indices for sn or cn. I tried to find this before committing all those
> >BerVarray patches, but unrolling them didn't make any difference.
> I'll resume
> >looking later,
> >but have to stop for the present.
> > -- Howard Chu
> > Chief Architect, Symas Corp. Director, Highland Sun
> > http://www.symas.com http://highlandsun.com/hyc
> > Symas: Premier OpenSource Development and Support