[email protected]
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: LDB_SCOPE_ONELEVEL without full traversal?

Subject: Re: LDB_SCOPE_ONELEVEL without full traversal?
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 08:31:14 +1100

 > Sure, I can certainly do that. But to me this feels just
 > wrong, this is something that ldb should do for me. Or do I
 > want too much from ldb?

I made a decision in the early design of ldb that building in the
natural tree structure of ldap was more complexity than we
needed. There are only a very few situations in the way ldb is
currently used where doing a full search to enumerate a subtree
matters (performanc wise), as clients tend to do searches based on
expressions, rather than trees. I think it was the right decision.

The main exception is GUI browsers, but those operate at the speed of
a human interface (ie. large fractions of a second between requests).

So for the moment using the indexing trick on parentDN is your best
bet if you really find the performance is a problem. Otherwise just
use a onelevel search and we can address the performance separately
later if needed.

Cheers, Tridge

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>