[Date Prev][Date Next]
Re: commit: ldap/servers/slapd config.c proto-slap.h schema_init.c slap.h
Hallvard B Furuseth wrote:
Hallvard B Furuseth writes:OK. As I understood the idea, it would apply to the above situation.
I.e., when no substring indexing is configured for an attribute, but it
does have a presence index.
I'm talking about the situation where you have a presence index but not
a substring index:
No, I'm also talking about when we do have a substring index, but whereI don't think we'd change this. The former situation would be handled
entirely in the backend, the latter situation would have to be handled
in the frontend. But the frontend currently doesn't handle presence
keys, we would need to move that from the backend into the frontend to
make this change. And since back-bdb and back-ldbm don't use the same
format for presence keys, unifying them in the frontend would require
one or both of them to undergo an incompatible database format change.
too small search strings are provided - in particular for more complex
queries. And I think I'm also talking about saying good night:-)
Nobody can predict whether such a search would more often fail or
succeed, that conclusion is unsupportable. I'm somewhat opposed to
setting up mechanisms that prevent a user from retrieving data that
exists and the user is authorized to access. But since refining the
search (with longer search strings) should allow the search to progress,
I guess I don't care too strongly about it.
The unchecked limit would make (mail=*foo*) fail at
once, while (mail=*) might narrow it down enough that the server would
then trawl through a lot of entries - often only to fail to find
-- Howard Chu
Chief Architect, Symas Corp. Director, Highland Sun
Symas: Premier OpenSource Development and Support