Re: notes=U, unindex search? really

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



As a directory server admin, I need to look at access log and find out who is doing expensive unindexed searchs. So that I can work with ldap clients to optimize search filter and DS indexes.

The way DSEE reports notes=U make it very simple for DS admin to find expensive unindexed searchs. 

----------------------------------------
> From: picturebook16@xxxxxxxxxxx
> To: 389-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE:  notes=U, unindex search? really
> Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 11:52:22 -0500
>
> ----------------------------------------
> > Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 08:53:34 -0700
> > From: rmeggins@xxxxxxxxxx
> > To: 389-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > CC: picturebook16@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: Re:  notes=U, unindex search? really
> >
> > On 01/18/2013 08:29 AM, Picture Book wrote:
> > > filter="(&(AllowAccess=Y)(uid=bill))"
> > > AllowAccess is unindexed attribute
> > > uid is indexed attribute
> > >
> > > access log search result: notes=U
> > >
> > > I imagine that directory server will do an indexed search by uid=bill, get the entry and then verify if AllowAccess=Y. To me this kind of search is indexed search.
> > >
> > > example:
> > >
> > > [18/Jan/2013:10:17:24 -0500] conn=124757 op=1 SRCH base="ou=people,dc=?" scope=1 filter="(&(AllowAccess=Y)(uid=bill))" attrs=ALL
> > > [18/Jan/2013:10:17:24 -0500] conn=124757 op=1 RESULT err=0 tag=101 nentries=1 etime=0 notes=U
> > >
> > > etime=0 confirms that this search is fast.
> >
> > You might imagine that, but that's not how the server works. It parses
> > the filter, sees that AllowAccess is unindexed, and uses an unindexed
> > search.
>
> I tried filter="(&(uid=bill)(AllowAccess=Y))". no more "notes=U". It would be great if the server can optimize search filter like I imagine. Because some ldap clients do not allow custom search filter.
>
> Thank you.
>
> >
> > >
> > > --
> > > 389 users mailing list
> > > 389-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-users
> > 		 	   		  
--
389 users mailing list
389-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-users



[Index of Archives]     [Fedora User Discussion]     [Older Fedora Users]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Package Announce]     [EPEL Announce]     [Fedora News]     [Fedora Cloud]     [Fedora Advisory Board]     [Fedora Education]     [Fedora Security]     [Fedora Scitech]     [Fedora Robotics]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Infrastructure]     [Fedora Websites]     [Anaconda Devel]     [Fedora Devel Java]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora Fonts]     [ATA RAID]     [Fedora Marketing]     [Fedora Management Tools]     [Fedora Mentors]     [Fedora Package Review]     [Fedora R Devel]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kickstart]     [Fedora Music]     [Fedora Packaging]     [Centos]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Fedora Legal]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora QA]     [Fedora Triage]     [Fedora OCaml]     [Coolkey]     [Virtualization Tools]     [ET Management Tools]     [Yum Users]     [Tux]     [Yosemite News]     [Yosemite Photos]     [Linux Apps]     [Maemo Users]     [Gnome Users]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]     [Fedora Art]     [Fedora Docs]     [Maemo Users]     [Asterisk PBX]     [Fedora Sparc]     [Fedora Universal Network Connector]     [Fedora ARM]

  Powered by Linux