#773 Investigate one-level indexing in ldb
Closed: wontfix 3 years ago by pbrezina. Opened 13 years ago by sbose.

There are a couple of places when accessing sysdb where, in theory, a one-level search scope would be sufficient. But currently this is not working as expected and we always use a subtree scope.

A first attempt (https://fedorahosted.org/pipermail/sssd-devel/2011-January/005475.html) didn't improve the performance. Further investigation is needed here.


Not a high priority at this time, since subtree searches are indexed fine (and we don't have depth in our cache anywhere)

milestone: NEEDS_TRIAGE => SSSD Deferred

Fields changed

rhbz: => 0

Metadata Update from @sbose:
- Issue set to the milestone: SSSD Patches welcome

7 years ago

Thank you for taking time to submit this request for SSSD. Unfortunately this issue was not given priority and the team lacks the capacity to work on it at this time.

Given that we are unable to fulfill this request I am closing the issue as wontfix.

If the issue still persist on recent SSSD you can request re-consideration of this decision by reopening this issue. Please provide additional technical details about its importance to you.

Thank you for understanding.

Metadata Update from @pbrezina:
- Issue close_status updated to: wontfix
- Issue status updated to: Closed (was: Open)

3 years ago

SSSD is moving from Pagure to Github. This means that new issues and pull requests
will be accepted only in SSSD's github repository.

This issue has been cloned to Github and is available here:
- https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/issues/1815

If you want to receive further updates on the issue, please navigate to the github issue
and click on subscribe button.

Thank you for understanding. We apologize for all inconvenience.

Login to comment on this ticket.

Metadata