[Date Prev][Date Next]
Re: Problems with EQUALITY generalizedTimeMatch
Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
--On Tuesday, February 17, 2004 12:41 PM -0600 Jon Roberts
Try an ORDERING clause to your attribute definitions, like:
which I notice doesn't list the generalizedTimeMatch syntax.
is the syntax.
Right. Also not listed in the Admin Guide (or in this case even found by
a search of the list archives until perhaps this thread), although
plainly in RFC 2252 along with other syntaxes. The numericStringOrdering
wouldn't work with time codes, I assume, because of the suffix. Once
again, my mistake; I glanced when I should've looked.
Incidentally, I've been able to effectively sort and subrange UTC
signatures with ORDERING caseIgnoreOrderingMatch. Since an advantage of
UTC is a natural numeric sort, can anyone briefly explain the efficiency
advantages of the generalizedTime syntaxes?