On Wed, 2002-04-24 at 11:48, Igor Stroh wrote: > On Wed, 2002-04-24 at 16:56, David E. Storey wrote: > > attributetype ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.7914.1.2.1.14 NAME 'qmailAccountPurge' > > DESC 'The earliest date when a mailMessageStore will be purged' > > EQUALITY generalizedTimeMatch > > ORDERING generalizedTimeOrderingMatch > > SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.24 > > SINGLE-VALUE ) > > Afaik generalizedTimeMatch has a NO-USER-MODIFICATION flag, I'd like to > set the timestamp manually though... also, the `date +'%s'` format is > easier to compare then generalized time... just my two cents :)
Syntaxes only have DESC flags. createTimestamp and updateTimestamp have the NO-USER-MODIFICATION flag associated with them at the attributeType definition, but nowhere in the attributeType above did I specify that flag. You are correct that using unix epoch seconds is MUCH more efficient and faster than using an LDAP generalizedTimeStamp. (And I knew this would come up...) Unfortunately, it just isn't standard. It's like using NUMBER in SQL versus a DATE. Sure it will be faster, but it would be MUCH more useful to store the data in a form that is much more useful for it. (I'm working with a database now that stores epoch seconds rather than DATE and it is a real pain to work with it. I've since mirrored the DB over and converted the columns and all is MUCH nicer now.) d!
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
