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

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
>dc: NLM

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.

dn: dc:NLM,dc=gov
dc: NLM
objectclass: domain

would represent a minimal LDAP entry.

>Then, a million of records like:
>dn: cn=1000/nl4/78654321,dc=NLM,dc=gov
>cn: 1000/nl4/78654321
>sn: z39.50r://z3950.nlm.nih.gov/medline?78654321

Same here, no objectclass.

I don't recommend abusing sn for URIs, labeledURI (or the
older labeledURL attribute type) would be a better choice.

dn: cn=1000/nl4/78654321,dc=NLM,dc=gov
cn: 1000/nl4/78654321
labeledURI: z39.50r://z3950.nlm.nih.gov/medline?78654321

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
>(z39.50r://z3950.nlm.nih.gov/medline?78654324) pairs.

I recommend that you keep the URN and URI values in separate
attributes.  This allows you to build useful equality indices.