---------------------------------------- > Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 07:48:55 -0700 > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: Re: ldap query performance issue > > 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. > Thanks Howard. I had to increase BDB_IDL_LOGN to 18 (also increasing the stack size) and rebuild the objectclass index, but the query is now sub-second.
> You should also test this query with your data loaded into back-mdb. I intend to look at using back-mdb instead of back-bdb soon, as well as upgrading to the latest openldap release. When do you expect 2.4.36 to be available? Chris
