RE: broken indexing

["Howard Chu" <hyc@highlandsun.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kurt D. Zeilenga [mailto:Kurt@OpenLDAP.org]

> At 03:18 AM 2002-01-14, Howard Chu wrote:
> >I've got it all working again, but I wonder how smart it is to use it in
> >general.  ("name" pulls in many other attributeTypes that perhaps don't need
> >to be indexed.) When indices are stored due to subtyping, they're all
> >stored in a single database, whereas explicit indexing uses a separate
> >database per attribute.
>
> No!  That's
>         index name      autosubtypes
>
> not
>         index name      eq,subtypes
>
> The latter, which should be the default, allows indices generated
> for an explicit type to be used by its subtypes.  That is, when
> search for (cn=foo) and there is no specific index on 'cn',
> candidates are select as if (name=foo) was asserted.
>
> The former, which should NOT be the default, causes indices for
> name and all of its subtypes to be generated.  This means if
> cn: foo exists in a entry, there will be keys for both cn: foo
> name: foo will appear in the index.
>
> Likewise for language tag indexing options.

I have corrected my previous patch to support this behavior. I see the
distinction, but it's a rather slim one. In the autosubtypes case, more
index files are generated. In the default case, the index for the supertype
just gets more heavily populated. In both cases, searches on subtypes will
effectively be processed with the index flags specified for the supertype.

  -- Howard Chu
  Chief Architect, Symas Corp.       Director, Highland Sun
  http://www.symas.com               http://highlandsun.com/hyc
  Symas: Premier OpenSource Development and Support