Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 07:48:55 -0700
From: h...@symas.com
To: ctc...@hotmail.com; openldap-technical@openldap.org
Subject: Re: ldap query performance issue
Chris Card wrote:
Any ideas?
Increase the IDL range. This is how I do it:
--- openldap
Indexing is all about making rare data easy to find. If you have an
attribute that occurs on 99% of your entries, indexing it won't save any
search time, and it will needlessly slow down modify time.
Asking about 1,000,000 entries is meaningless on its own. It's not the raw
number of
2013/5/28 Meike Stone meike.st...@googlemail.com:
I ask this, because it seems to me, that the basedn does not matter in
the search ...
In my special (real world) case, I have in the basedn 84,000 objects
but only one of this is a person with objectclass=inetOrgperson.
I have about 420,000
Meike Stone wrote:
2013/5/28 Meike Stone meike.st...@googlemail.com:
I ask this, because it seems to me, that the basedn does not matter in
the search ...
In my special (real world) case, I have in the basedn 84,000 objects
but only one of this is a person with objectclass=inetOrgperson.
I
Hello,
because of this, does it make sense in a directory with 1,000,000
people to index the sex?
thanks Meike
2013/5/23 Quanah Gibson-Mount qua...@zimbra.com:
--On Thursday, May 23, 2013 4:40 PM + Chris Card ctc...@hotmail.com
wrote:
Hi all,
I have an openldap directory with about
Meike Stone wrote:
Hello,
because of this, does it make sense in a directory with 1,000,000
people to index the sex?
Indexing is all about making rare data easy to find. If you have an attribute
that occurs on 99% of your entries, indexing it won't save any search time,
and it will
From: ctc...@hotmail.com
To: qua...@zimbra.com
Subject: RE: ldap query performance issue
Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 17:37:18 +
Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 10:06:51 -0700
From: qua...@zimbra.com
To: ctc
Chris Card wrote:
Any ideas?
Increase the IDL range. This is how I do it:
--- openldap-2.4.35/servers/slapd/back-bdb/idl.h.orig 2011-02-17
16:32:02.598593211 -0800
+++ openldap-2.4.35/servers/slapd/back-bdb/idl.h 2011-02-17
16:32:08.937757993 -0800
@@ -20,7 +20,7 @@
/* IDL sizes - likely
Hello,
had the same problem years ago and the patch worked for me. As I
understood, this special problem exist in mdb too
(http://www.openldap.org/lists/openldap-technical/201301/msg00185.html)
Thats one reason, because I did not switch till now.
Thanks Meike
2013/5/24 Howard Chu
Sorry for top posting, google web client is hiding always the message
while answering *grrr*
Meike
Meike Stone wrote:
Hello,
had the same problem years ago and the patch worked for me. As I
understood, this special problem exist in mdb too
(http://www.openldap.org/lists/openldap-technical/201301/msg00185.html)
Thats one reason, because I did not switch till now.
Yes, back-mdb uses the same
--On Friday, May 24, 2013 5:38 PM +0200 Meike Stone
meike.st...@googlemail.com wrote:
Hello,
had the same problem years ago and the patch worked for me. As I
understood, this special problem exist in mdb too
(http://www.openldap.org/lists/openldap-technical/201301/msg00185.html)
Thats one
Hi all,
I have an openldap directory with about 7 million DNs, running openldap 2.4.31
with a BDB backend (4.6.21), running on CentOS 6.3.
The structure of the directory is like this, with suffix dc=x,dc=y
dc=x,dc=y
account=a,dc=x,dc=y
mail=m,account=a,dc=x,dc=y // Users
--On Thursday, May 23, 2013 4:40 PM + Chris Card ctc...@hotmail.com
wrote:
Hi all,
I have an openldap directory with about 7 million DNs, running openldap
2.4.31 with a BDB backend (4.6.21), running on CentOS 6.3.
The structure of the directory is like this, with suffix dc=x,dc=y
14 matches
Mail list logo
