[Date Prev][Date Next]
Re: indexing of Attributes for presence (ITS#1486)
At 03:07 AM 2001-12-08, email@example.com wrote:
>Full_Name: Georg Knittel
>OS: solaris 2.8
>Submission from: (NULL) (22.214.171.124)
>I am working now with about 70.000 instance of one object in one Directory
>Server. I am using
>java 1.2 / jndi 1.2.1
>All operations to and from the Directory Server are done via java/jndi.
>In the index file I included the following line:
>index default pres,eq
>Therefore every attribute should be indexed by presence.
No. Read slapd.conf(5). But the lack of indexing should
not affect results returned.
>In the schema file I have somehat like:
>objectclass o1 ...
> MUST (Att_must1 $ Att_must2)
> MAY (Att_may1 $ Att_may2 ... Att_mayn)
>Now I am going to write 100 instances of o1, by setting the values Att_must1,
>Att_must2 and for example Att_May1. Att_may2 is not set.
>Thereafter I filter by (&(objectclass=o1)(Att_may1))
That's an invalid filter. ldapsearch(1) should complain:
ldapsearch: ldap_search_ext: Bad search filter (87)
I assume you meant (&(objectclass=o1)(Att_may1=*))
>and I will get back 100
>That is fine.
>Then I filter by (&(objectclass=o1)(Att_may2))
And likewise with this filter.
>and still I will get back 100
>That is not so fine.
Well, assuming that's what you actually did, I'd have to agree.
If att_may2 is not present in these 100 entries, they shouldn't
I suggest you provide a sample of one of these returned entries.
>Does it sounds OK like that?
The server should behave in accordance with the X.500 data
model. In this model, an attribute has a type and one or
more values. This is expected and enforced by the server.