[Date Prev][Date Next]
Re: inequality predicates
At 09:10 PM 7/14/00 -0500, Sudha K. wrote:
> I tried using the inequality predicates (>=, <=) to search for some
>integer attributes using ldap_search. However, I wasnt successful in this
>and it appears that only the equality predicate is recognized. Can someone
>please provide some help on how I should define attribute types that allow
>inequality predicates while searching?
OpenLDAP 1.x only allows you define an attribute's syntax. This
syntax implicitly implies matching rules for all assertions. That is:
attribute foo ces
defines foo to be a directory string with case sensitive equality,
ordering, and substrings match.
If you are using an LDAPv3 server, you likely need to explicitly
define the matching rules. See RFC2252.
>Most of the numeric attribute types
>(like gidNumber)that are defined in the standard schema files seem to have
>only an EQUALITY predicate defined on them.
You mean RFC2307 (which is Informational, not Standard Track).
attributetype ( 220.127.116.11.18.104.22.168 NAME 'gidNumber'
DESC 'An integer uniquely identifying a group in an administrative domain'
SYNTAX 22.214.171.124.4.1.14126.96.36.199.27 SINGLE-VALUE )
This schema is defined in LDAPv3 terms. And yes, the attribute does
not an ORDERING matching, so any >= or <= assertions are Undefined.
You may be able to do an ordering match via the extensible
matching rule assertion (See RFC2251).