[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
Re: ldap query performance issue
Hello,
had the same problem years ago and the patch worked for me. As I
understood, this special problem exist in mdb too
(http://www.openldap.org/lists/openldap-technical/201301/msg00185.html)
Thats one reason, because I did not switch till now.
Thanks Meike
2013/5/24 Howard Chu <hyc@symas.com>:
> Chris Card wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Any ideas?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Increase the IDL range. This is how I do it:
>>>>
>>>> --- openldap-2.4.35/servers/slapd/back-bdb/idl.h.orig 2011-02-17
>>>> 16:32:02.598593211 -0800
>>>> +++ openldap-2.4.35/servers/slapd/back-bdb/idl.h 2011-02-17
>>>> 16:32:08.937757993 -0800
>>>> @@ -20,7 +20,7 @@
>>>> /* IDL sizes - likely should be even bigger
>>>> * limiting factors: sizeof(ID), thread stack size
>>>> */
>>>> -#define BDB_IDL_LOGN 16 /* DB_SIZE is 2^16, UM_SIZE is 2^17
>>>> */
>>>> +#define BDB_IDL_LOGN 17 /* DB_SIZE is 2^16, UM_SIZE is 2^17
>>>> */
>>>> #define BDB_IDL_DB_SIZE (1<<BDB_IDL_LOGN)
>>>> #define BDB_IDL_UM_SIZE (1<<(BDB_IDL_LOGN+1))
>>>> #define BDB_IDL_UM_SIZEOF (BDB_IDL_UM_SIZE * sizeof(ID))
>>>
>>> Thanks, that looks like it might be the issue. Unfortunately I only see
>>> the issue in production, so patching it might be a pain.
>>
>> I've tried this change, but it made no difference to the performance of
>> the query.
>
>
> You have to re-create all of the relevant indices as well. Also, it's always
> possible that some slots in your index are still too big, even for this
> increased size.
>
> You should also test this query with your data loaded into back-mdb.
> --
> -- Howard Chu
> CTO, Symas Corp. http://www.symas.com
> Director, Highland Sun http://highlandsun.com/hyc/
> Chief Architect, OpenLDAP http://www.openldap.org/project/
>