[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
Re: hdb vs. search base
I assume from your statements you're at a point where you can
slapadd -l breakMe.ldif # on hdb, breaks
when it works fine to
slapadd -l breakMe.ldif # on bdb
I'd try cleaning up your breakMe.ldif to not have 6,800 departments (1
entry per base should be sufficient?) and see if that matters. Assuming it
doesn't, that should be small enough to submit an ITS with a santizied
config and your sanitized, small LDIF. (Or unsanitized if you can find
appropriate entries; whatever you're comfortable with.) If it doesn't
reproduce with the small data set, it's probably worth submitting an ITS
anyway, because bdb and hdb shouldn't have differing behavior like that.
On Mon, 8 May 2006, Donn Cave wrote:
> Testing an organization white pages directory with 2.3.21
> and hdb backend, I was disappointed to find that some
> search bases don't work -- 0 entries found -- where more
> general or more specific bases do work. Is this an expected
> result, maybe something that depends on tuning parameters
> like idlcachesize?
>
> The structure is, sort of diagrammatically,
> suffix
> people
> students
> dept1
> student1
> ...
> dept2
> ...
> staff
> dept8
> staff1
> ...
> dept9
> ...
>
> So far, it looks like the following search bases work:
> suffix
> students,people,suffix
> deptx,students,people,suffix
> deptx,staff,people,suffix
>
> and the following do not work:
> people,suffix
> staff,people,suffix
>
> "staff" contains about 6800 departments. It's garbage that
> people type into web forms and whatnot, every possible spelling
> of every departmental unit, and punctuation tends to be somewhat
> haphazard too. It builds without errors, though.
>
> I can use bdb for this, works fine, but it would be interesting
> to find out where hdb is going wrong, if anyone can think of
> further useful experiments. So far I have tried idlcachesizes
> from none to 10000.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Donn Cave, donn@u.washington.edu
>
>
>