> On 4 Aug 2019, at 23:55, Lutz Berger <lutz.berger@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hello, > > I've come across a web site > that claims that an "equality index" is only allowed for attributes > that have "EQUALITY" in their description, "otherwise terrible things > will happen". > > For example > >> attributeTypes: ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.13299.2.3.7.xxx NAME 'abCLZ' EQUALITY caseIgnoreMatch SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.15 SINGLE-VALUE X-ORIGIN 'user defined' ) > > For the sake of correctness, I've tried to build an equality-index for an attribute missing such description, e.g. > > >> attributeTypes: ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.13299.2.3.7.xyz NAME 'abID' SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.15 SINGLE-VALUE X-ORIGIN 'user defined' ) > > > Withour EQ-Index: > [root@ur1 slapd-ur1devims]# fgrep "conn=34" access > [03/Aug/2019:14:21:00 +0200] conn=34 fd=65 slot=65 connection from 192.168.69.152 to 192.168.69.152 > [03/Aug/2019:14:21:00 +0200] conn=34 op=0 BIND dn="cn=Directory Manager" method=128 version=3 > [03/Aug/2019:14:21:00 +0200] conn=34 op=0 RESULT err=0 tag=97 nentries=0 etime=0 dn="cn=directory manager" > [03/Aug/2019:14:21:00 +0200] conn=34 op=1 SRCH base="ou=users,c=de,o=creditreform" scope=2 filter="(abID=777777777022544)" attrs=ALL > [03/Aug/2019:14:21:26 +0200] conn=34 op=1 RESULT err=0 tag=101 nentries=1 etime=26 notes=A > [03/Aug/2019:14:21:26 +0200] conn=34 op=2 UNBIND > [03/Aug/2019:14:21:26 +0200] conn=34 op=2 fd=65 closed - U1 > [root@ur1 slapd-ur1devims]# > > With EQ-Index: > [root@ur1 slapd-ur1devims]# fgrep "conn=35" access > [03/Aug/2019:14:24:18 +0200] conn=35 fd=65 slot=65 connection from 192.168.69.152 to 192.168.69.152 > [03/Aug/2019:14:24:18 +0200] conn=35 op=0 BIND dn="cn=Directory Manager" method=128 version=3 > [03/Aug/2019:14:24:18 +0200] conn=35 op=0 RESULT err=0 tag=97 nentries=0 etime=0 dn="cn=directory manager" > [03/Aug/2019:14:24:18 +0200] conn=35 op=1 SRCH base="ou=users,c=de,o=creditreform" scope=2 filter="(abID=777777777022544)" attrs=ALL > [03/Aug/2019:14:24:18 +0200] conn=35 op=1 RESULT err=0 tag=101 nentries=1 etime=0 > [03/Aug/2019:14:24:18 +0200] conn=35 op=2 UNBIND > [03/Aug/2019:14:24:18 +0200] conn=35 op=2 fd=65 closed - U1 > > My question is now, is the EQUALITY part of the schema description really necessary > for building equality-indexes on attributes, since I couldn't reproduce any obvious > problem. > > From the access pattern I see in the access log, building such an index is > definitely beneficial in sense of performance. I think that without the equality syntax defined, you will fall back on a literal memcmp between the two values as byte arrays. This of course has lots of issues with UTF8 and many other types. Generally if possible, it's *always* best to give a proper equality type to ensure that types will compare in an expected manner, rather than giving surprising results. Be explicit :) I hope that helps, > > Thanks for your efforts! > You are most welcome, and thanks for your question! > Best regards, > Lutz > > > -- > Dipl.-Inform. Univ. Lutz Berger > Email: lutz.berger@xxxxxxxxxxxx > > > _______________________________________________ > 389-users mailing list -- 389-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > To unsubscribe send an email to 389-users-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/389-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx — Sincerely, William Brown Senior Software Engineer, 389 Directory Server SUSE Labs _______________________________________________ 389-users mailing list -- 389-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to 389-users-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/389-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
