Hi, > > Agreed, I think we should give it a try and compare how the two key > >formats perform. > > Yes. This is specially interesting as it is a simple solution for OAK-333 > (1000 byte path limit in MongoMK). Even if we find out performance is much > worse than with the current solution, we could still use the hash approach > for long paths.
hmm, isn't that a different problem? so far we only discussed replacing the depth prefix with a hash prefix. AFAIU the full path would still be part of the key. Regards Marcel
