Mailing-List: contact dev-help@directory.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Apache Directory Developers List" <dev@directory.apache.org>
Message-ID: <4BEBBE14.2050204@apache.org>
Date: Thu, 13 May 2010 10:53:40 +0200
From: Stefan Seelmann <seelmann@apache.org>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (X11/20100411)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Apache Directory Developers List <dev@directory.apache.org>
Subject: Re: About reverse index ...
References: <4BE6D7CB.7020502@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4BE6D7CB.7020502@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Emmanuel Lecharny wrote:
> Hi guys,
> 
snip
> 
> So here is what I suggest :
> - get rid of those reverse index
> - or, at least, make it optionnal
> 
> thoughts ?

You described pure attribute value indices (including system indices
like objectClass and entryUUID as well as user indices like cn or uid).
I think for those indices it is possible to get rid of the reverse index
table.

However there are other indices:
- alias
- onealias
- subalias
- onelevel
- sublevel
- rdn
For those indices it is more difficult to remove the reverse index table
because the reverse() methods are used more often and the information
can't be extracted from the entry.

Kind Regards,
Stefan

PS: We also need to find out how to restructure the alias and
one/sublevel indices. We now have an RDN index that allows renames/moves
in O(1). But the update of the indices still takes more time.