directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Ersin Er" <ersin...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: ApacheDS partition implementation based on Relational Model
Date Sat, 11 Nov 2006 21:45:55 GMT
http://www.amazon.com/Hierarchies-Smarties-Kaufmann-Management-Systems/dp/1558609202

:-D

On 11/2/06, Alex Karasulu <aok123@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> Emmanuel Lecharny wrote:
> >
> >      >> The simplest way to do it is to construct tables that look just
> >     like the
> >      >> b-tree relations used in a custom LDAP data store. However this
> >     doesn't
> >      >> goal achieve #2 above.
> >      >
> >      > Can you explain this more?
> >
> >     Basically he's saying model the db like you do the jdbm tables in the
> >     ldbm rip off we use for the default backing store.
> >
> >     Meaning you have a master table, an id2dn table, and so on just like
> >     using jdbm tables.
> >
> >
> > If we go to RDBMS, this would be the worst approach. It is suppose to be
> > a relationnal model, not an hierarchical model mapped on a relationnal
> > model. Performance will be awfull
>
> You're right but there is no other distinctly different approach to have
> a generalized approach to storing any kind of entry in a RDBMS.  Whether
> you use one big table or many little two column tables you're still
> going to have a mess and inefficency.
>
> One of the reasons I wanted to stuff it all into a single table was to
> avoid the join overhead.  But by far the extra network latency will kill
> performance way before that.
>
> I've got to agree with David and say that any RDBMS backed backend is
> not going to perform as well as a btree based implementation.  This is
> primarily due to the extra layer of latency you're imposing.  Caching is
> also an option.  But at this point you might as well stop and build a
> virtual directory instead.  That's energy well spent.
>
> Alex
>


-- 
Ersin

Mime
View raw message