[Date Prev][Date Next]
Re: what's the simplest ldif record openLdap can accept?
At 12:09 PM 9/29/99 -0400, Kelley Hu wrote:
>Dear openLdap users,
>We are trying to evaluate openLdap as possible candidate for servers
>for resolving Uniform Resource Names (URNs) to Uniform Resource
>Locators(URLs). In order to achieve the highest performance, our
>record should be trimmed down to bare minimum
Actually, this is not generally true. For highest performance,
your data needs to be represented in a manner which is indexing
and caching can be optimized for the search patterns most used.
>yet comply with ldif format.
s/comply with ldif format/comply with schema and other LDAP restriction/
> What is the minimum per record the ldif required?
What are the minimally requirements for a LDAP entry.
It must have a DN, a structural objectclass, and attribute
value to fulfill RDN requirements.
>for example, my one million records starts with:
>dn: dc=NLM, dc=gov
Though valid LDIF, the record does not represent a valid
LDAP entry. An LDAP entry should have a structural object
class such as domain or organization.
would represent a minimal LDAP entry.
>Then, a million of records like:
Same here, no objectclass.
I don't recommend abusing sn for URIs, labeledURI (or the
older labeledURL attribute type) would be a better choice.
You also need, of course, an appropriate objectclass.
>Can I trim this down further?
No, you actually trimmed too much.
>All I need is a searchable name
>(1000/nl4/78654324) / value
I recommend that you keep the URN and URI values in separate
attributes. This allows you to build useful equality indices.