On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 2:22 PM, Kiran Ayyagari <[email protected]> wrote: >> 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. >> > Just to make a point: > I think, in the case of achieving SubLevel index evaluation with RDN > index it becomes a costly and complex operation > (recursive scanning and updating) where as with the current sublevel > index it takes O(1) to fetch all the sublevel children of > an entry.
Hm, evalutation can easly be done by using the reverse RDN index table.
