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

Re: Problems with EQUALITY generalizedTimeMatch

Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
--On Tuesday, February 17, 2004 12:41 PM -0600 Jon Roberts <man@mentata.com> wrote:
Try an ORDERING clause to your attribute definitions, like:

ORDERING numericStringOrderingMatch

See also:


which I notice doesn't list the generalizedTimeMatch syntax.

       ORDERING generalizedTimeOrderingMatch

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?

Jon Roberts