Re: back-bdb performance

[Marijn Meijles <marijn@bitpit.net>]

You wrote:
> 
> Concurrent write access is a problem because of the possibility of
> deadlock. Using the Concurrent Database Store may seem to cause a
> bottleneck, but it may be faster overall because it avoids deadlock.
> When I split my 10000 entry ldif file into two separate files and
> spawn two ldapadd commands on the same server, back-bdb time goes to
> 1 or 2 minutes (up from 30-some seconds) depending on the deadlock
> detector. Back-ldbm is still around 46 seconds.

It's fairly easy to get this back to 30-something. Just think hard
about the update order and use child transactions as a trick. I
just finished it and it works like a charm.

-- 
Marijn@bitpit.net
---
The light at the end of a tunnel may be an oncoming train.