Meike Stone wrote:
had the same problem years ago and the patch worked for me. As I
understood, this special problem exist in mdb too
Thats one reason, because I did not switch till now.
Yes, back-mdb uses the same index design, but it is still inherently faster
than BDB backends.
2013/5/24 Howard Chu <hyc(a)symas.com>:
> Chris Card wrote:
>>>>> Any ideas?
>>>> Increase the IDL range. This is how I do it:
>>>> --- openldap-2.4.35/servers/slapd/back-bdb/idl.h.orig 2011-02-17
>>>> 16:32:02.598593211 -0800
>>>> +++ openldap-2.4.35/servers/slapd/back-bdb/idl.h 2011-02-17
>>>> 16:32:08.937757993 -0800
>>>> @@ -20,7 +20,7 @@
>>>> /* IDL sizes - likely should be even bigger
>>>> * limiting factors: sizeof(ID), thread stack size
>>>> -#define BDB_IDL_LOGN 16 /* DB_SIZE is 2^16, UM_SIZE is 2^17
>>>> +#define BDB_IDL_LOGN 17 /* DB_SIZE is 2^16, UM_SIZE is 2^17
>>>> #define BDB_IDL_DB_SIZE (1<<BDB_IDL_LOGN)
>>>> #define BDB_IDL_UM_SIZE (1<<(BDB_IDL_LOGN+1))
>>>> #define BDB_IDL_UM_SIZEOF (BDB_IDL_UM_SIZE * sizeof(ID))
>>> Thanks, that looks like it might be the issue. Unfortunately I only see
>>> the issue in production, so patching it might be a pain.
>> I've tried this change, but it made no difference to the performance of
>> the query.
> You have to re-create all of the relevant indices as well. Also, it's always
> possible that some slots in your index are still too big, even for this
> increased size.
> You should also test this query with your data loaded into back-mdb.
> -- Howard Chu
> CTO, Symas Corp. http://www.symas.com
> Director, Highland Sun http://highlandsun.com/hyc/
> Chief Architect, OpenLDAP http://www.openldap.org/project/
-- Howard Chu
CTO, Symas Corp. http://www.symas.com
Director, Highland Sun http://highlandsun.com/hyc/
Chief Architect, OpenLDAP http://www.openldap.org/project/