directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alex Karasulu <akaras...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [index] Presence index usage
Date Sun, 25 Mar 2012 11:53:59 GMT
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 6:38 PM, <hyc@symas.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 05:28:50PM +0100, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote:
> > Le 3/22/12 5:11 PM, hyc@symas.com a écrit :
> > >On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 04:40:17PM +0100, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote
>
> > >>Now, if we consider the fact that having all the AT stored in the
> > >>index will allow us to know what will be the impacted entries if an
> > >>AT is removed from the schema, then it can be a good thing to have a
> > >>complete index with all the AT.
> > >It's an interesting idea, if the admin was going to index it anyway.
> > >Otherwise, IMO you're optimizing for a very infrequent case, which
> > >is self-defeating.
> > Here, it's not about optimization, really.
> >
> > The idea is much more about bieng able to see if an AT removal from
> > the schema is likely to impact the data, without doing a full scan.
>
> Yes... but "avoiding a full scan" is just a (coarse) optimization of
> the schema change.
>
> > Not sure it's a sane politic though : removing an AT from a
> > production server sounds a bad idea...
>
> Agreed. And again, even if it's for a valid reason, it will occur once
> in a blue moon. Who cares how long it takes?
>
> If you're really concerned about this scenario, sounds like a refcount
> on the schema elements would be more straightforward.
>

+1 this would be easier to comprehend and maintain in the long run verses
this mechanism which couples the index to ref-count like functionality.

-- 
Best Regards,
-- Alex

Mime
View raw message