Re: (Dumb?) X-ORDERED 'VALUES' question

[Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah@zimbra.com>]

--On Friday, August 24, 2007 7:47 PM +0200 Pierangelo Masarati 
<ando@sys-net.it> wrote:

> Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
>
> > Maybe unrelated, but this reminds me of the issue I ran into with
> > valsort where adding ordering made it so that I couldn't search on the
> > non-weighted values
>
> DO you mean values without {X} intermixed with values with {X}?  I'm not
> sure I understand all the implications of ordering.

Well, let's say I have an "eq" index on ou.

Before valsort, my values were:

ou: Computer Science
ou: English

After valsort, my values were:

ou: {2}Computer Science
ou: {1}English


ldapsearch "ou=English"

will return 0 results, because the actual value is {1}English, so the 
equality match fails.  Things get even more interesting if you wanted to, 
say, add ordering to the telephoneNumber attribute -- Can't happen, because 
{} are not valid for the syntax, so you can't add ordered values.

--Quanah

--

Quanah Gibson-Mount
Principal Software Engineer
Zimbra, Inc
--------------------
Zimbra ::  the leader in open source messaging and collaboration