On Thu, 2006-12-07 at 00:03 +0100, Volker Lendecke wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 05:59:42PM -0500, simo wrote:
> > This means that at every tconx you have to scan the shares db which
> > happen to be the registry backed by ldb.
> No!! I follow the same model that apply for usershares, so
> *only* a 'smbclient -L' would scan the shares. For tconX we
> have a direct access to the share, but we have to enumerate
> the values.
In thi case I'd say that keeping the values in a registry key all inside
the same object is much better then creating an ldb object for each
> > That said, I am not completely sure why we should have one level
> > searches to read out shares definitions.
> > I think that ldb can be used in a very efficient way that the registry
> > API do not leverage. I would personally create a share object in ldb,
> > with attributes containing all the shares options.
> But then we are back where we are now: All registry values
> for a key end up in a single tdb record. If you put the
> printer data into that, quite large data will end up there,
> and having all values for a key in a single record is going
> to be slow.
What's the common amount of values you can have in a key?
How much data is this?
If this is a problem I see that the example in my other email may not be
the best approach.
Samba Team GPL Compliance Officer