|
On 8/5/19 8:57 AM, Mark Reynolds wrote:
On 8/4/19 9:55 AM, Lutz Berger 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' )
So what is happening is that the first example has a "matching
rule" defined: EQUALITY caseIgnoreMatch. If you define such
an attribute with this syntax you MUST have an equality index
for that attribute. Otherwise the server has to manually
perform this matching - which is VERY expensive. Hence why you
see an etime of 26 seconds. Once its indexed for equality the
matching rule can efficiently be processed.
Sorry this is actually incorrect. The matching rule is not the
problem in the case, since you are not using the matching rule in
the search filter. See
https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-us/red_hat_directory_server/10/html/administration_guide/finding_directory_entries-ldap_search_filters#using-matching-rules
So this is just an issue of basic indexing. You are doing an
equality search, so you need an equality index, otherwise the
server has to sequentially scan the database for matching entries.
Regards,
Mark
But you do not NEED to use this matching rule: EQUALITY
caseIgnoreMatch, unless you have a requirement for it. But you
should always index your attribute for how you plan to use it.
In this case you are doing an equality search:
<ATTR>=<some exact value> so you would want an
equality index (regardless of the presence of a matching rule).
HTH,
Mark
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.
Thanks for your efforts!
Best regards,
Lutz
_______________________________________________
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
--
389 Directory Server Development Team
_______________________________________________
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
--
389 Directory Server Development Team
|
_______________________________________________
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
