[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

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

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