[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

Re: ordered indexing for integers

Ralf Haferkamp wrote:
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.

I partially take this back - the config option also lets you set the size of the index keys to use, and that flexibility is probably still useful.

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).

-- -- Howard Chu Chief Architect, Symas Corp. http://www.symas.com Director, Highland Sun http://highlandsun.com/hyc/ Chief Architect, OpenLDAP http://www.openldap.org/project/