Re: openldap-2.2.13 indexes

[Janis Pinkis <jpinkis@lanet.lv>]

Citēju Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah@stanford.edu>:

> 
> 
> --On Wednesday, June 16, 2004 9:16 AM -0400 Kirk Turner-Rustin 
> <ktrustin@owu.edu> wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, 16 Jun 2004, Janis Pinkis wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Hi!
> >>
> >> I have just started to play with 2.2 and bdb backed (so far i was using
> >> 2.1 with ldbm). My question is about bdb cache size. In post and faq's i
> >> have found out that index files must be in hash format and the id2entry
> >> and dn2id in btree format. But acording mu db_stat all my index files
> >> are in btree format. Am i doing something wrong?
> >
> > Indexes were changed from hash to btree around OpenLDAP 2.2.6,
> > I think. Someone (Darin Broady?) posted a pragma for changing it
> > back to hash some time ago. Search the archives if you need to do
> > that for some reason.
> 
> That's correct.  Btree indices are remarkably faster when performing 
> indexing over hashes (I did a series of tests comparing differences between 
> the two at one point).
> 
> Note: The results on the pages listed below are for much older versions of 
> OpenLDAP in both the 2.1 (2.1.25) and 2.2 (2.2.5)series than what is 
> available now, and are simply provided to display the differences between 
> hash and btree indices.

OK. Then a next question. Can i use the same bdb cache size formula for indexes
as for dn2id and id2entry: pagesize*(internal_pages+1)?

Regards
J.Pinkis