directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Emmanuel Lécharny <elecha...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Inex branch merged into trunk...
Date Wed, 02 May 2012 12:57:32 GMT
Le 5/2/12 12:55 PM, Kiran Ayyagari a écrit :
> On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 4:20 PM, Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot<pa@marcelot.net>  wrote:
>> On 2 mai 2012, at 12:24, Kiran Ayyagari wrote:
>>> this method has two extreme cases,
>>> 1. best performance when no attributes are requested
>>> 2. same overhead as cloning when all attributes are requested
>>>
>>> cause in real world scenario 1 will never be used,
>> Actually in Studio, scenario 1 is used a lot.
>> That's exactly what happens do when opening a node and browsing the DIT in the UI
(almost, because we do ask for the objectClass attribute).
>>
> yeap, I know, but this is a very limited usage, or shall I say just
> for tooling (essentially helpful for paging etc, else dOOM is certain
> the moment I expand a 100k node tree (provided my limit is set to>
> 100k ;))

Regarding a standard directory usage, I would say that even if most of 
the users are doing simple searches requested all the user attributes to 
be returned (regardless the netwrok traffic it generates), again, they 
usually don't request operational attributes.

But if they do limit the number of attributes they want, then this makes 
a huge difference from the server perspective not to clone the useless 
attributes.

Otherwise, with the second solution I proposed (ie, not cloning nor 
storing the removed ATs), we just evaluate on the fly the elements to 
encode, without having to create an entry at all.

This should defintively save a large amout of CPU !

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


Mime
View raw message