directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Emmanuel Lécharny <elecha...@apache.org>
Subject Re: HBase partition integration in trunks ?
Date Tue, 16 Aug 2011 13:38:42 GMT
On 8/16/11 3:27 PM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 10:53 AM, Emmanuel Lécharny<elecharny@apache.org>wrote:
>
>> On 8/15/11 5:59 PM, Stefan Seelmann wrote:
>>
>>> Now I have to update the parts that are a bit special, let me explain:
>>> In HBase partition I didn't use one-level and sub-level indices, but
>>> use the RDN index table instead. I also extended the search engine in
>>> that way that one-level and sub-level cursors get the search filter in
>>> order to perform filtering within the store instead of returning all
>>> candidates and evaluate them.
>>>
>> Some toughts about this one-level/sub-level index.
>>
>> Using the Rdn index makes perfect sense : we have the Rdn ->  parent
>> relation plus the parent ->  children relation in this index, so there is no
>> need to have a one level index (all the children are already listed in the
>> RDN index for a specific entry). I'm a bit more concerned about the
>> sub-level processing : we have to recurse on all the children to get all the
>> candidates. That's fine, we can easily implement that (and you already did),
>> but what concerns me is that we don't have the count of all the entries, we
>> will have to compute them. This count is necessary in the search engine to
>> select the index we will use to walk the entries.
>>
>> One solution would be to store two more elements in the ParentIdAndRdn data
>> structure : the number of children directly below the RDN, and the number of
>> children and descendant. That would probably solve the issue I'm mentioning.
>> Of course, that also means we wil have to update all the RDN hierarchy from
>> top to bottom (but affecting only the RDN part of the entry DN) each time we
>> add/move/delete an entry. Note that we already do that for the oneLevel and
>> Sublevel index.
>>
>>
> Good idea Emmanuel.

Note that I just rephrased Stefan's idea here. It's not mine initially.
>
> This would be a neat solution to handling the sub level count problem. Let's
> experiment with this and see if it does intact lead to a speedup which I
> think it should but it's good to just see. I wish we had a nice lab for
> this.
HBase work done by Stefa is already an excellent lab :)
>
> Also we need to update the docs a bit to show all the changes that took
> place. We still show the old upon and ndn indices of old. Something at the
> heart of the server like this should always be in sync with the
> documentation.
yes...


-- 
Regards,
Cordialement,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com


Mime
View raw message