directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Boreham <>
Subject Re: ApacheDS partition implementation based on Relational Model
Date Sat, 11 Nov 2006 22:53:39 GMT

>> > If we go to RDBMS, this would be the worst approach. It is suppose 
>> to be
>> > a relationnal model, not an hierarchical model mapped on a relationnal
>> > model. Performance will be awfull
I missed a few iterations in this thread (been busy with the day job),
but some late thoughts:

1. Have you looked at what's inside a RDBMS engine ?
B-trees and query processing that's much the same as
the average directory server. So mapping the DS's b-tree
relations to tables (which are themselves implemented as
b-trees) is not imho an inefficient approach.

2. the dit hierarchy is  really a non-problem for RDBMS
mapping -- after all DS'es that use b-tree storage managers
directly already have the same identical problem to solve.
the average DIT is not very bushy nor deep anyway.

3. If you are concerned about performance, don't use
a RDBMS. The approach already chosen for Apache DS
is the most performant (possibly needs some work, but
it's the right way to go for performance).

4. Attempting to 'really use' the relational data model for
directory entries takes us back to the previously mentioned
relational mapping science project. (Customer already
has a bunch of tables in Oracle, and we need to refect
those via LDAP) Certainly an interesting
field to study, but there's no obvious good way to solve
this problem that I know of. Virtual Directory and sync
(meta) type solutions have addressed this area for
years with a fair degree of success.

View raw message