On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 6:45 PM, Stefan Seelmann <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. > for one level it is straight forward, but for sublevel we still need to use recursion, no?
-- Kiran Ayyagari
