[Date Prev][Date Next]
Re: ordered indexing for integers
On Mittwoch, 21. November 2007, Howard Chu wrote:
> Michael Ströder wrote:
> > Howard Chu wrote:
> >>> If incompatibility worries people even as early as this in 2.4's life,
> >>> we could leave the old format as the default in 2.4, and provide a
> >>> slapd.conf-option to enable ordered indexing.
> >> OK, I guess we can add a config option to switch formats.
> > For how long will this database backward compability be guaranteed? Will
> > this config switch affect other changes in database format? Don't open
> > this can of worms...
> Nothing else is affected, just the Equality index for Integer attributes.
> > Since others also agreed that 2.4.7 is still early enough I'd prefer to
> > avoid another config option. But 2.4.7 should released during next two
> > weeks for introducing this change early enough.
> We can make it the default and remove the config option. I'm fine either
> way. Currently the default is still the old hash format, but it's easy
> enough to remove the option.
> > IIRC in some former days database format changed frequently even within
> > a media release series (don't remember which one). IMO migration from
> > 2.3.x to 2.4.7+ is a significant update with lots of changes.
> > slapcat/slapadd seems a reasonable migration action anyway.
> Well, from 2.3 to 2.4 a change wouldn't be very surprising. This is 2.4.6
> to 2.4.7, which may be more surprising.
I think we don't have too much 2.4.6 users currently and if we communicate the
change clearly enough we can afford such a change. I think similar to Michael
here, let's avoid the additional config setting and make the new index format
the default. My reason for this is, that the option only really makes sense
when using old 2.3 (and 2.4.6) databases, the options is of very low values
when creating new databases, I guess. (And you would have to explicitly set
it for a new database to be able to use ordered indexes).