Please
do Wook… I’d like to see what that’s all about… J
:m:dsm:cci:mvp |
marcusoh.blogspot.com
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of joe
Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2006 8:57 AM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] stupid ldap queries
Oi.
You
may want to post your creative work so everyone is in on the joke, I am sure
some folks would really appreciate it. :)
joe
--
O'Reilly
Active Directory Third Edition - http://www.joeware.net/win/ad3e.htm
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lee, Wook
Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2006 11:48 AM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] stupid ldap queries
Adding
indices will start you down the slippery slope that ultimately leads to custom
schema extensions. Do you like new OIDs? J
Wook
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of joe
Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2006 4:19 AM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] stupid ldap queries
Exactly,
you can tell you AD to do it efficiently versus trying to train everyone who
writes a query that goes against AD. I mean you want to try and train everyone
because there are other bad things they can do that you can't easily handle but
this is a nice quick easy thing to do to help.
I
HIGHLY HIGHLY HIGHLY recommend folks use adfind or ldp to test their queries
and have the STATS output generated and displayed when they are doing dev work
to figure out how good their queries are, in adfind, look at the -STATS* set of
switches. Seriously, they are very cool. You will learn a lot about how the
queries are working whether you intend to or not.
joe
--
O'Reilly
Active Directory Third Edition - http://www.joeware.net/win/ad3e.htm
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2006 12:34 AM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] stupid ldap queries
It’d
the same relative gain running a query using objectcategory versus objectclass.
Most of the time, I would run into queries that people were using,
utilizing objectclass instead of objectcategory. Indexing objectclass
made this moot.
:m:dsm:cci:mvp |
marcusoh.blogspot.com
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jef Kazimer
Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 5:55 PM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] stupid ldap queries
It seems like an obvious
idea to implement. Sad we never thought about it. :)
Has anyone done any tests
to reveal what performance gains this yields on queries?
Thanks,
Jef
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] stupid ldap queries
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 17:03:35 -0400
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
I
did the same after I saw some of the activedir folks post about doing it…
J
:m:dsm:cci:mvp |
marcusoh.blogspot.com
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lee, Wook
Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 4:47 PM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] stupid ldap queries
I
never understood why Microsoft chose not to index objectclass by default. I
indexed it in our directory as soon as we got the go ahead from Microsoft that
it was supported. That was years ago.
Wook
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian Desmond
Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 11:50 AM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] stupid ldap queries
No. isMemberOfPartialAttributeSet just means that the attribute
is replicated into the GC. Being in the GC does not imply that the attribute is
indexed. There’s an attribute (I think “isIndexed”) which
says the attribute should be indexed in the database.
Thanks,
Brian Desmond
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
c - 312.731.3132
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matheesha
Weerasinghe
Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 2:15 PM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] stupid ldap queries
bummer! I meant adfind
-schema -f
"&(objectclass=attributeschema)(ismemberofpartialattributeset=TRUE)"
ldapdisplayname -list
On 4/18/06, Matheesha Weerasinghe
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
sorry that was meant to be adfind -schema -f
"&(objectclass=attributeschema)(ismemberofpartialattributeset=T RUE)"
ldapdisplayname -list
On 4/18/06, Matheesha Weerasinghe
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Thanks for the reply. In that case why does
adfind -schema -f
"&(objectclass=attributeschema)(ismemberofpartialattributeset=T RUE)"
ldapdisplayname -list
returning objectclass amongs the others? Doesn't this mean objectclass is
indexed? The reason I ask is because I wanted to make sure I didn't write
stupid ldap queries that load up the server. I am still learning so please be
patient with this n00b.
Thanks