LDB_SCOPE_ONELEVEL without full traversal?

[Volker Lendecke]

On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 05:59:42PM -0500, simo wrote:
> This means that at every tconx you have to scan the shares db which
> happen to be the registry backed by ldb.

No!! I follow the same model that apply for usershares, so
*only* a 'smbclient -L' would scan the shares. For tconX we
have a direct access to the share, but we have to enumerate
the values.
 
> That said, I am not completely sure why we should have one level
> searches to read out shares definitions.
> 
> I think that ldb can be used in a very efficient way that the registry
> API do not leverage. I would personally create a share object in ldb,
> with attributes containing all the shares options.

But then we are back where we are now: All registry values
for a key end up in a single tdb record. If you put the
printer data into that, quite large data will end up there,
and having all values for a key in a single record is going
to be slow.

Volker
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.samba.org/archive/samba-technical/attachments/20061207/9c584c0a/attachment.bin