From dev-return-34546-apmail-directory-dev-archive=directory.apache.org@directory.apache.org Tue Jul 20 09:16:17 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-directory-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 52261 invoked from network); 20 Jul 2010 09:16:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by 140.211.11.9 with SMTP; 20 Jul 2010 09:16:16 -0000 Received: (qmail 39975 invoked by uid 500); 20 Jul 2010 09:16:16 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-directory-dev-archive@directory.apache.org Received: (qmail 39762 invoked by uid 500); 20 Jul 2010 09:16:13 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@directory.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: "Apache Directory Developers List" Delivered-To: mailing list dev@directory.apache.org Received: (qmail 39755 invoked by uid 99); 20 Jul 2010 09:16:13 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 20 Jul 2010 09:16:13 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2000.0 required=10.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received: from [140.211.11.9] (HELO minotaur.apache.org) (140.211.11.9) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with SMTP; Tue, 20 Jul 2010 09:16:10 +0000 Received: (qmail 52209 invoked by uid 99); 20 Jul 2010 09:15:48 -0000 Received: from localhost.apache.org (HELO emmanuel-lecharnys-MacBook-Pro.local) (127.0.0.1) (smtp-auth username elecharny, mechanism plain) by minotaur.apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 20 Jul 2010 09:15:48 +0000 Message-ID: <4C4569C4.5080308@apache.org> Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2010 11:17:56 +0200 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Emmanuel_L=E9charny?= Reply-To: elecharny@apache.org Organization: The Apache Software Foundation User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.4) Gecko/20100608 Thunderbird/3.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Apache Directory Developers List Subject: Re: Update about subtree problems References: <4C44E117.6040509@gmail.com> <4C45504F.5090507@symas.com> <4C455B17.4030709@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org On 7/20/10 10:53 AM, Alex Karasulu wrote: > On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 11:15 AM, Emmanuel Lecharnywrote: > >> If you have to move data in a Ldap base, User, then you have to pay the >> price ! >> >> > Well yes but even renames cost the same as moves if the DN is in the entry. > Someone changing an ou=People to ou=Users containing 100 Million entries > should not expect to wait hours before it completes. Plus the atomicity > issue is seriously nasty. The DN embedded into the Entry was definitely not > the way to go. In fact Kiran and Seelmann's new RDN index to replace the DN > index saved us big time making these operations atomic, faster and safer. Faster, I don't know, but IMO, it's irrelevant. Safer, that's absolutely certain. But then you have the exact same problem with the subtree implemented approach : no atomicity, slow rename/move operations, even for normal entries, and no atomicity... This is what bugs me : why should we apply a strategy for DN and the opposite one for subentries... -- Regards, Cordialement, Emmanuel Lécharny www.iktek.com