RE: going waaaayyy OT [ActiveDir] stupid ldap queries
The English have abandoned gender? Oh those poor women... This explains so much about my visit to London... Especially why women in the pub were so interested in men who spoke English without an English accent. All you nice young women of England You are all welcome in the States... Move today! Queen Elizabeth II She's one of those big big girls over at Cunard isn't she? Weighing in at like 75,000 tons (tonnes). She can accommodate around 2000 guests simultaneously. Quite the friendly and inviting gal . ;o) I think I recall seeing a TV show about her. They had interviews with lots of rich people who had paid a lot of money to get a chance to be on her, or is it be aboard her, or in her. I confess I don't really know my nautical terms. Oi. I should stop now[1]. =) joe [1] If anything in this post made you upset or angry, you obviously misread the words or you have a virus which scrambled the words because they were put together in quite a humourous (humorous for Gil) fashion when they left my PC. :) -- O'Reilly Active Directory Third Edition - http://www.joeware.net/win/ad3e.htm -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of AdamT Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2006 5:24 AM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: Re: going waaaayyy OT [ActiveDir] stupid ldap queries On 4/26/06, joe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I have an idea, if you are going to say "rooter", why not actually try > spelling it that way? In the interests of removing confusion and > global peace and love and all of that jazz. ;o) > English is not phonetic language. If it was, words like 'phonetic' would be spelt phonetically. In English, we have abandoned gender for nouns, and the case system for the most part (with the exception of accusative forms, like he/him, she/her, they/them). It's only fair that we get some awkward spellings - or else the language is in danger of being spoken by any Tom, Dick or Harry with no allegience to her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II... oh, right ;-) -- AdamT 'Thank-you for not requesting read receipts' List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx List FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx List FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
Re: going waaaayyy OT [ActiveDir] stupid ldap queries
On 4/26/06, joe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I have an idea, if you are going to say "rooter", why not actually try > spelling it that way? In the interests of removing confusion and global > peace and love and all of that jazz. ;o) > English is not phonetic language. If it was, words like 'phonetic' would be spelt phonetically. In English, we have abandoned gender for nouns, and the case system for the most part (with the exception of accusative forms, like he/him, she/her, they/them). It's only fair that we get some awkward spellings - or else the language is in danger of being spoken by any Tom, Dick or Harry with no allegience to her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II... oh, right ;-) -- AdamT 'Thank-you for not requesting read receipts' List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx List FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
Re: going waaaayyy OT [ActiveDir] stupid ldap queries
»»'m afraid that your problem with aluminium is that you've lost a letter The very first shipment of Aluminium to the USA was greated by a customs official that mispelt the description of goods ie with an I missing, the rest is as they say - history. M -Original Message- From: "Steve Rochford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 17:22:51 To: Subject: RE: going waaaayyy OT [ActiveDir] stupid ldap queries The thing is that those of us who know how to pronounce the language make efficient use of all the letters and hence get multiple pronunciations and meanings from the same set of letters :-) router (pronounced rooter) is the thing in your network; router (pronounced in some way I can't do in phonetics because my phonetics don't work across the pond!) is the thing you use for wood working I'm afraid that your problem with aluminium is that you've lost a letter - the letter is I and I can understand why a person as quite and unassuming as Joe would not want to thrust that extra I at us :-) (Actually, a quick google tells me that it's we brits who are wrong but why should we let facts stand in the way of an argument !!) The thing that always intrigues me about English is that it's now spoken by so many people who just don't know where in the world it comes from - I've had people tell me I speak English well and sound surprised when i tell them I'm from the UK - it's as if they don't know we speak English here... Steve From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of joe Sent: 23 April 2006 19:03 To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: RE: going wyyy OT [ActiveDir] stupid ldap queries Oh, there is no question with router, you guys totally screw that one up ;o) Ditto for aluminum. I can't even try to say it the way you do, sounds like you threw in a couple of extra letters and a syllable or two... Me, I think I am going to learn Chinese or Spanish and stick to that completely. joe -- All your base belong to us. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2006 11:43 AM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: going wyyy OT [ActiveDir] stupid ldap queries hmm, bit of a circular argument there really :) Most of the computer lingo was created by those on your side of the pond and was thus influenced by "American English". Naturally, the majority "dictate" to the minority (to a point) but it's a shame to see words change so much that their origins are lost along the way. [as for the pronunciation of words, such as 'router', that's another story! perhaps we'll save that debate for another day :) ] IMHO, "indexes", "matrixes" and so on are just plain clumsy :) neil ---- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of joe Sent: 20 April 2006 15:41 To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] stupid ldap queries Yeah I am always confused on whether I should write indexes or indices. Indices (in dih sees) is what I want to write but have seen too many MS docs that had it written as indexes. Ditto viruses and virii. English and computer speak don't meld well... There is some old quote that goes something like (I know this isn't right but it is the gist...) If you had a computer language that was based on proper english you couldn't find any programmers who could use it. joe -- O'Reilly Active Directory Third Edition - http://www.joeware.net/win/ad3e.htm: <http://www.joeware.net/win/ad3e.htm> ---- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2006 9:48 AM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] stupid ldap queries I'm not sure I see the link here between indices and extensions. The former are utilised to help optimise queries against the database whilst the latter are used to store additional data in the (same) database. If an attribute is queried on a frequent basis and it's not indexed, then I'd suggest there's a good argument for adding a new index. However, the addition of new data types and hence attributes (and/or classes) does not necessarily flow from that change - at least not in my experience. Did I read too much into your post? Judging from DEC, I'd say you are a little paranoid about making changes to the schema - even the addition of indices :) [nice to see the word spelt correctly, for a change :) ] I completely agree that the schema should be treated with respect and only changed where necessary - a new index is a relatively small change that can res
Re: going waaaayyy OT [ActiveDir] stupid ldap queries
On 4/24/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'm sure someone could write a similar poem which highlighted the > > idiosyncrasies of French (or Spanish or any well established and evolved > language). Actually, French and Spanish (and pretty much all the Romance Languages) have a far more uniform pronounciation than English does. For anyone who hasn't kill-filed this thread - I recommend Bill Bryson's book 'Mother Tongue' - for an entertaining and informative guide to the evolution of the English Language. PS: Route - (rhymes with 'boot') is a line of travel between one point and another. Rout (rhymes with 'out') means to overrwhelm an enemy in battle to the extent that they run away and retreat. -- AdamT 'Thank-you for not requesting read receipts' List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx List FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
RE: going waaaayyy OT [ActiveDir] stupid ldap queries
LOL. Surely that's typical of any language which has evolved over many, many years and has been influenced by other cultures and languages (due to wars and immigration and so on). English has been influenced by Viking, Roman, French and various other Scandinavian and Western European languages and cultures over the last few thousand years. We should *expect* rather than be surprised at the oddities seen in the poem below. That's what makes a language such as English so interesting. After all, why did Esperanto never catch on? [I'm not sure if this is a well known language in the US.] I'm sure someone could write a similar poem which highlighted the idiosyncrasies of French (or Spanish or any well established and evolved language). I found the poem quite light hearted and fun to read (surely not hard work for anyone who has English as a first language) - it really shows how the English language has evolved (to the extent that we now question the merits of certain aspects). Cool thread. [but that's just me :) ] neil -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Grillenmeier, Guido Sent: 24 April 2006 09:59 To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: RE: going wyyy OT [ActiveDir] stupid ldap queries could no longer hold myself back - and since this thread is waaayyy OT anyways: here's my favorite poem about the Joys of the English Language... :-) Apparently it's an excerpt from The Chaos by Gerard Nolst Trenité from 1922! Try to read the text out loud and count how often you see youself stumble or at least amazed by the different ways to pronounce the same written word, or how words that have a totally different spelling are pronounced exactly the same... :-)) Cheers, Guido The Joys Of The English Language Read it aloud, you'd be amazed! Once you've learned to correctly pronounce every word in the following poem, you will be speaking English better than 90% of the native English speakers in the world. If you find it tough going, do not despair, you are not alone: Multinational personnel at North Atlantic Treaty Organisation headquarters near Paris found English to be an easy language ... until they tried to pronounce it. To help them discard an array of accents, the verses below were devised. After trying them, a Frenchman said he'd prefer six months at hard labour to reading six lines aloud. Try them yourself. English is Tough Stuff Dearest creature in creation, Study English pronunciation. I will teach you in my verse Sounds like corpse, corps, horse, and worse. I will keep you, Suzy, busy, Make you head with heat grow dizzy. Tear in eye, your dress will tear. So shall I! Oh hear my prayer. Just compare heart, beard, and heard. Dies and diet, lord and word, Sword and sward, retain and Britain. (Mind the latter, how it's written.) Now I surely will not plague you With such words as plaque and ague. But be careful how you speak: Say break and steak, but bleak and streak; Cloven, oven, how and low, Script, receipt, show, poem, and toe. Hear me say, devoid of trickery, Daughter, laughter, and Terpsichore, Typhoid, measles, topsails, aisles, Exiles, similes, and reviles; Scholar, vicar, and cigar, Solar, mica, war and far; One, anemone, Balmoral, Kitchen, lichen, laundry, laurel: Gertrude, German, wind and mind, Scene, Melpomene, mankind. Billet does not rhyme with ballet, Bouquet, wallet, mallet, chalet. Blood and flood are not like food. Nor is mould like should and would. Viscous, viscount, load and broad, Toward, to forward, to reward. And your pronunciation's OK When you correctly say croquet, Rounded, wounded, grieve and sieve, Friend and fiend, alive and live. Ivy, privy, famous, clamour And enamour rhyme with hammer. River, rival, tomb, bomb, comb, Doll and roll and some and home. Stranger does not rhyme with anger, Neither does devour with clangour. Souls but foul, haunt and aunt, Font, front, wont, want, grand and grant, Shoes, goes, does. Now first say finger, And singer, ginger, linger, Real, zeal, mauve, gauze, gouge and gauge, Marriage, foliage, mirage, and age. Query does not rhyme with very, Nor does fury sound like bury. Dost, lost, post and doth, cloth, loth. Job, nob, bosom, transom, oath. Though the differences seem little, We say actual but victual. Refer does not rhyme with deafer. Foeffer does, and zephyr, heifer. Mint, pint, senate and sedate; Dull, bull, and George ate late. Scenic, Arabic, Pacific, Science, conscience, scientific. Liberty, library, heave and heaven, Rachel, ache, moustache, eleven. We say hallowed, but allowed, People, leopard, towed, but vowed. Mark the differences, moreoever, Between mover, cover, clover; Leeches, breeches, wise, precise, Chalice, but police and lice; Camel, constable, unstable, Principle, disciple, label. Petal, panel, and canal, Wait, surprise, plait, promise, pal. Worm and storm, chaise,
RE: going waaaayyy OT [ActiveDir] stupid ldap queries
city of Haarlem. Trenité wrote articles under the pen name CHARIVARIOUS and a little booklet entitled "Drop Your English Accent," in which the poem appeared. see also: http://www.idallen.com/ncf/english.html -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of joe Sent: Sonntag, 23. April 2006 20:16 To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: RE: going wyyy OT [ActiveDir] stupid ldap queries Completely agree, but you would be amazed at the people who like to get their panties in a bunch either way you use it. If I recall my high school Latin correctly (very possibly not as it has been a bit), Virii was the plural of vir which was husband or possibly man (all of the references to it I recall were to married couples). Me personally, I don't care, I will use whatever words that get the point across. The only hard and fast rule about language IMO is that a word means exactly what people trying to communicate agree on that it means. Doesn't much matter outside of that as words are simply used for communicating ideas. When people start getting their drawers bunched up and arguing over words and spelling I sit in the corner and titter wondering if we will ever get back on point. Spelling and pronunciation of words is right up there with top versus bottom posting arguments and complaining that something isn't fair. :) joe -- O'Reilly Active Directory Third Edition - http://www.joeware.net/win/ad3e.htm -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of AdamT Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2006 12:22 PM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: Re: going wyyy OT [ActiveDir] stupid ldap queries On 4/20/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Ditto viruses and virii. ... > Being a bit of a pedant, I have to point out that virii is neither good English, nor good Latin: http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/virii.html -- AdamT A: Because it breaks the logical sequence of discussion Q: Why is top-posting a bad thing? List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx List FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx List FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx List FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
RE: going waaaayyy OT [ActiveDir] stupid ldap queries
Completely agree, but you would be amazed at the people who like to get their panties in a bunch either way you use it. If I recall my high school Latin correctly (very possibly not as it has been a bit), Virii was the plural of vir which was husband or possibly man (all of the references to it I recall were to married couples). Me personally, I don't care, I will use whatever words that get the point across. The only hard and fast rule about language IMO is that a word means exactly what people trying to communicate agree on that it means. Doesn't much matter outside of that as words are simply used for communicating ideas. When people start getting their drawers bunched up and arguing over words and spelling I sit in the corner and titter wondering if we will ever get back on point. Spelling and pronunciation of words is right up there with top versus bottom posting arguments and complaining that something isn't fair. :) joe -- O'Reilly Active Directory Third Edition - http://www.joeware.net/win/ad3e.htm -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of AdamT Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2006 12:22 PM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: Re: going waaaayyy OT [ActiveDir] stupid ldap queries On 4/20/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Ditto viruses and virii. ... > Being a bit of a pedant, I have to point out that virii is neither good English, nor good Latin: http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/virii.html -- AdamT A: Because it breaks the logical sequence of discussion Q: Why is top-posting a bad thing? List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx List FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx List FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
RE: Back on topic.... OT [ActiveDir] stupid ldap queries
When you need VLV or sorting (the component of a VLV search that will break when you use and exceed temptable space) to actually work on a container that contains more than 10k objects and you don't want to change the temptable size. joe -- O'Reilly Active Directory Third Edition - http://www.joeware.net/win/ad3e.htm -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lee, Wook Sent: Friday, April 21, 2006 1:01 PM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: RE: going waaaayyy OT [ActiveDir] stupid ldap queries For me the more interesting question for the modern AD schema czar is whether or not to start enabling containerized indices (or indexes if you'd rather) and when those become beneficial. Wook List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx List FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
RE: going waaaayyy OT [ActiveDir] stupid ldap queries
See what happens when you forget to put a smiley at the end of a post.
:)
FWIW, I find English to be an endlessly fascinating language and the
tension between the descriptive and prescriptive schools of grammar is a
constant source of amusement.
So whether indices or indexes (see how I keep this on topic) in AD
sufficiently increase the IQ (index quotient) of a particular query all
depends on which object classes the indexed attribute appears in and
what the demographics of the value space is.
A common reason I've heard for not indexing objectClass is that it is
multi-valued and included a value, Top, that is common to all objects.
Well, just because a particular value is not helpful in selecting a
proper subset of objects doesn't mean that other values are similarly
worthless.
For me the more interesting question for the modern AD schema czar is
whether or not to start enabling containerized indices (or indexes if
you'd rather) and when those become beneficial.
Wook
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, April 21, 2006 12:07 AM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: going wyyy OT [ActiveDir] stupid ldap queries
I promise to leave this thread alone after this post... Honest :)
"Facsimiles" is already a plural and "fax" is an abbreviation of
"facsimile".
The plural of "facsimile" is thus "facsimiles" and the plural of "fax"
is "faxes". Where the analogy with ox and oxen sprang from, I have no
clue :)
neil
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lee, Wook
Sent: 20 April 2006 19:37
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: going wyyy OT [ActiveDir] stupid ldap queries
So would the correct Latin be viri? We used to sometimes refer to more
than one VAX as VAXen using the ox/oxen model. Multiple facsimiles would
then be faxen.
Wook
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of AdamT
Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2006 9:22 AM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: Re: going wyyy OT [ActiveDir] stupid ldap queries
On 4/20/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Ditto viruses and virii. ...
>
Being a bit of a pedant, I have to point out that virii is neither good
English, nor good Latin:
http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/virii.html
--
AdamT
A: Because it breaks the logical sequence of discussion
Q: Why is top-posting a bad thing?
List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive:
http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive:
http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
PLEASE READ: The information contained in this email is confidential and
intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you are not an intended
recipient of this email please notify the sender immediately and delete
your
copy from your system. You must not copy, distribute or take any further
action in reliance on it. Email is not a secure method of communication
and
Nomura International plc ('NIplc') will not, to the extent permitted by
law,
accept responsibility or liability for (a) the accuracy or completeness
of,
or (b) the presence of any virus, worm or similar malicious or disabling
code in, this message or any attachment(s) to it. If verification of
this
email is sought then please request a hard copy. Unless otherwise stated
this email: (1) is not, and should not be treated or relied upon as,
investment research; (2) contains views or opinions that are solely
those of
the author and do not necessarily represent those of NIplc; (3) is
intended
for informational purposes only and is not a recommendation,
solicitation or
offer to buy or sell securities or related financial instruments. NIplc
does not provide investment services to private customers. Authorised
and
regulated by the Financial Services Authority. Registered in England
no. 1550505 VAT No. 447 2492 35. Registered Office: 1 St
Martin's-le-Grand,
London, EC1A 4NP. A member of the Nomura group of companies.
List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive:
http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
RE: going waaaayyy OT [ActiveDir] stupid ldap queries
I promise to leave this thread alone after this post... Honest :)
"Facsimiles" is already a plural and "fax" is an abbreviation of
"facsimile".
The plural of "facsimile" is thus "facsimiles" and the plural of "fax"
is "faxes". Where the analogy with ox and oxen sprang from, I have no
clue :)
neil
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lee, Wook
Sent: 20 April 2006 19:37
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: going wyyy OT [ActiveDir] stupid ldap queries
So would the correct Latin be viri? We used to sometimes refer to more
than one VAX as VAXen using the ox/oxen model. Multiple facsimiles would
then be faxen.
Wook
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of AdamT
Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2006 9:22 AM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: Re: going wyyy OT [ActiveDir] stupid ldap queries
On 4/20/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Ditto viruses and virii. ...
>
Being a bit of a pedant, I have to point out that virii is neither good
English, nor good Latin:
http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/virii.html
--
AdamT
A: Because it breaks the logical sequence of discussion
Q: Why is top-posting a bad thing?
List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive:
http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive:
http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
PLEASE READ: The information contained in this email is confidential and
intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you are not an intended
recipient of this email please notify the sender immediately and delete your
copy from your system. You must not copy, distribute or take any further
action in reliance on it. Email is not a secure method of communication and
Nomura International plc ('NIplc') will not, to the extent permitted by law,
accept responsibility or liability for (a) the accuracy or completeness of,
or (b) the presence of any virus, worm or similar malicious or disabling
code in, this message or any attachment(s) to it. If verification of this
email is sought then please request a hard copy. Unless otherwise stated
this email: (1) is not, and should not be treated or relied upon as,
investment research; (2) contains views or opinions that are solely those of
the author and do not necessarily represent those of NIplc; (3) is intended
for informational purposes only and is not a recommendation, solicitation or
offer to buy or sell securities or related financial instruments. NIplc
does not provide investment services to private customers. Authorised and
regulated by the Financial Services Authority. Registered in England
no. 1550505 VAT No. 447 2492 35. Registered Office: 1 St Martin's-le-Grand,
London, EC1A 4NP. A member of the Nomura group of companies.
List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
RE: going waaaayyy OT [ActiveDir] stupid ldap queries
So would the correct Latin be viri? We used to sometimes refer to more than one VAX as VAXen using the ox/oxen model. Multiple facsimiles would then be faxen. Wook -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of AdamT Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2006 9:22 AM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: Re: going wyyy OT [ActiveDir] stupid ldap queries On 4/20/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Ditto viruses and virii. ... > Being a bit of a pedant, I have to point out that virii is neither good English, nor good Latin: http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/virii.html -- AdamT A: Because it breaks the logical sequence of discussion Q: Why is top-posting a bad thing? List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx List FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx List FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
RE: [ActiveDir] stupid ldap queries
You are not authorized to view this page
That's it??? EVEN *I* can do THAT :o)
Sincerely,
_
(, / | /) /) /)
/---| (/_ __ ___// _ // _
) /|_/(__(_) // (_(_)(/_(_(_/(__(/_
(_/ /)
(/
Microsoft MVP - Directory Services
www.readymaids.com <http://www.readymaids.com> - we know IT
www.akomolafe.com <http://www.akomolafe.com>
Do you now realize that Today is the Tomorrow you were worried about
Yesterday? -anon
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Lee, Wook
Sent: Thu 4/20/2006 11:24 AM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] stupid ldap queries
Ok, ok. I just started a blog in MSN Spaces. I've posted the aforementioned
creative work so that the rest of the list denizens can be in on the inside
joke from DEC 2006.
http://spaces.msn.com/wooksworld
It's the April 20, 2006 posting about the 2006 NetPro Directory Experts
Conference for anyone who sees this in the archives. It may not be there by
the time you see this but what can you expect when you're trolling through
archives?
I'll let the folks who see it decide if it's on topic or not. :-)
Wook
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2006 6:37 AM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] stupid ldap queries
Please do Wook... I'd like to see what that's all about... :-)
: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
<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? :-)
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
<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] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
<mailto:ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org>
I did the same after I saw some of the activedir folks post about
doing it... :-)
:m:dsm:cci:
RE: [ActiveDir] stupid ldap queries
Ok, ok. I just started a blog in MSN Spaces. I’ve posted the aforementioned creative work so that the rest of the list denizens can be in on the inside joke from DEC 2006. http://spaces.msn.com/wooksworld It’s the April 20, 2006 posting about the 2006 NetPro Directory Experts Conference for anyone who sees this in the archives. It may not be there by the time you see this but what can you expect when you’re trolling through archives? I’ll let the folks who see it decide if it’s on topic or not. J Wook From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2006 6:37 AM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] stupid ldap queries 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 P
RE: going waaaayyy OT [ActiveDir] stupid ldap queries
Mouse/mice – valid w/ cheese. Is it valid with a computer? :m:dsm:cci:mvp | marcusoh.blogspot.com From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Susan Bradley, CPA aka Ebitz - SBS Rocks [MVP] Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2006 12:22 PM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: Re: going wyyy OT [ActiveDir] stupid ldap queries The words color and colour are fortunately not too far off... worse yet is the automatic machine translations of KB articles that take technical information and mangle it into incomprehensible information. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: hmm, bit of a circular argument there really :) Most of the computer lingo was created by those on your side of the pond and was thus influenced by "American English". Naturally, the majority "dictate" to the minority (to a point) but it's a shame to see words change so much that their origins are lost along the way. [as for the pronunciation of words, such as 'router', that's another story! perhaps we'll save that debate for another day :) ] IMHO, "indexes", "matrixes" and so on are just plain clumsy :) neil From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of joe Sent: 20 April 2006 15:41 To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] stupid ldap queries Yeah I am always confused on whether I should write indexes or indices. Indices (in dih sees) is what I want to write but have seen too many MS docs that had it written as indexes. Ditto viruses and virii. English and computer speak don't meld well... There is some old quote that goes something like (I know this isn't right but it is the gist...) If you had a computer language that was based on proper english you couldn't find any programmers who could use it. 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: Thursday, April 20, 2006 9:48 AM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] stupid ldap queries I'm not sure I see the link here between indices and extensions. The former are utilised to help optimise queries against the database whilst the latter are used to store additional data in the (same) database. If an attribute is queried on a frequent basis and it's not indexed, then I'd suggest there's a good argument for adding a new index. However, the addition of new data types and hence attributes (and/or classes) does not necessarily flow from that change - at least not in my experience. Did I read too much into your post? Judging from DEC, I'd say you are a little paranoid about making changes to the schema - even the addition of indices :) [nice to see the word spelt correctly, for a change :) ] I completely agree that the schema should be treated with respect and only changed where necessary - a new index is a relatively small change that can result in big improvements within the environment, however. I would not approach an extension in the same way though :) my 2 penneth, neil From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Lee, Wook Sent: 19 April 2006 16:48 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
Re: going waaaayyy OT [ActiveDir] stupid ldap queries
The words color and colour are fortunately not too far off... worse yet is the automatic machine translations of KB articles that take technical information and mangle it into incomprehensible information. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: hmm, bit of a circular argument there really :) Most of the computer lingo was created by those on your side of the pond and was thus influenced by "American English". Naturally, the majority "dictate" to the minority (to a point) but it's a shame to see words change so much that their origins are lost along the way. [as for the pronunciation of words, such as 'router', that's another story! perhaps we'll save that debate for another day :) ] IMHO, "indexes", "matrixes" and so on are just plain clumsy :) neil From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of joe Sent: 20 April 2006 15:41 To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] stupid ldap queries Yeah I am always confused on whether I should write indexes or indices. Indices (in dih sees) is what I want to write but have seen too many MS docs that had it written as indexes. Ditto viruses and virii. English and computer speak don't meld well... There is some old quote that goes something like (I know this isn't right but it is the gist...) If you had a computer language that was based on proper english you couldn't find any programmers who could use it. 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: Thursday, April 20, 2006 9:48 AM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] stupid ldap queries I'm not sure I see the link here between indices and extensions. The former are utilised to help optimise queries against the database whilst the latter are used to store additional data in the (same) database. If an attribute is queried on a frequent basis and it's not indexed, then I'd suggest there's a good argument for adding a new index. However, the addition of new data types and hence attributes (and/or classes) does not necessarily flow from that change - at least not in my experience. Did I read too much into your post? Judging from DEC, I'd say you are a little paranoid about making changes to the schema - even the addition of indices :) [nice to see the word spelt correctly, for a change :) ] I completely agree that the schema should be treated with respect and only changed where necessary - a new index is a relatively small change that can result in big improvements within the environment, however. I would not approach an extension in the same way though :) my 2 penneth, neil From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Lee, Wook Sent: 19 April 2006 16:48 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: going waaaayyy OT [ActiveDir] stupid ldap queries
On 4/20/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Ditto viruses and virii. ... > Being a bit of a pedant, I have to point out that virii is neither good English, nor good Latin: http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/virii.html -- AdamT A: Because it breaks the logical sequence of discussion Q: Why is top-posting a bad thing? List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx List FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
RE: [ActiveDir] stupid ldap queries
Merriam-Webster online lists both forms of the plural as valid: http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/indexes From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of joeSent: Thursday, April 20, 2006 7:41 AMTo: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] stupid ldap queries Yeah I am always confused on whether I should write indexes or indices. Indices (in dih sees) is what I want to write but have seen too many MS docs that had it written as indexes. Ditto viruses and virii. English and computer speak don't meld well... There is some old quote that goes something like (I know this isn't right but it is the gist...) If you had a computer language that was based on proper english you couldn't find any programmers who could use it. 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: Thursday, April 20, 2006 9:48 AMTo: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] stupid ldap queries I'm not sure I see the link here between indices and extensions. The former are utilised to help optimise queries against the database whilst the latter are used to store additional data in the (same) database. If an attribute is queried on a frequent basis and it's not indexed, then I'd suggest there's a good argument for adding a new index. However, the addition of new data types and hence attributes (and/or classes) does not necessarily flow from that change - at least not in my experience. Did I read too much into your post? Judging from DEC, I'd say you are a little paranoid about making changes to the schema - even the addition of indices :) [nice to see the word spelt correctly, for a change :) ] I completely agree that the schema should be treated with respect and only changed where necessary - a new index is a relatively small change that can result in big improvements within the environment, however. I would not approach an extension in the same way though :) my 2 penneth, neil From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lee, WookSent: 19 April 2006 16:48To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: 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 joeSent: Wednesday, April 19, 2006 4:19 AMTo: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: 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 AMTo: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: 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 KazimerSent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 5:55 PMTo: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: 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 queriesDate: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 17:03:35 -0400From: [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, WookSent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 4:47 PMTo: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] stupid ldap queries I never understood why Microsoft chose not to index objectclass
RE: [ActiveDir] stupid ldap queries
Yeah I am always confused on whether I should write indexes or indices. Indices (in dih sees) is what I want to write but have seen too many MS docs that had it written as indexes. Ditto viruses and virii. English and computer speak don't meld well... There is some old quote that goes something like (I know this isn't right but it is the gist...) If you had a computer language that was based on proper english you couldn't find any programmers who could use it. 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: Thursday, April 20, 2006 9:48 AMTo: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] stupid ldap queries I'm not sure I see the link here between indices and extensions. The former are utilised to help optimise queries against the database whilst the latter are used to store additional data in the (same) database. If an attribute is queried on a frequent basis and it's not indexed, then I'd suggest there's a good argument for adding a new index. However, the addition of new data types and hence attributes (and/or classes) does not necessarily flow from that change - at least not in my experience. Did I read too much into your post? Judging from DEC, I'd say you are a little paranoid about making changes to the schema - even the addition of indices :) [nice to see the word spelt correctly, for a change :) ] I completely agree that the schema should be treated with respect and only changed where necessary - a new index is a relatively small change that can result in big improvements within the environment, however. I would not approach an extension in the same way though :) my 2 penneth, neil From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lee, WookSent: 19 April 2006 16:48To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: 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 joeSent: Wednesday, April 19, 2006 4:19 AMTo: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: 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 AMTo: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: 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 KazimerSent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 5:55 PMTo: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: 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 queriesDate: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 17:03:35 -0400From: [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, WookSent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 4:47 PMTo: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: 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 DesmondSent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 11
RE: [ActiveDir] stupid ldap queries
I'm not sure I see the link here between indices and extensions. The former are utilised to help optimise queries against the database whilst the latter are used to store additional data in the (same) database. If an attribute is queried on a frequent basis and it's not indexed, then I'd suggest there's a good argument for adding a new index. However, the addition of new data types and hence attributes (and/or classes) does not necessarily flow from that change - at least not in my experience. Did I read too much into your post? Judging from DEC, I'd say you are a little paranoid about making changes to the schema - even the addition of indices :) [nice to see the word spelt correctly, for a change :) ] I completely agree that the schema should be treated with respect and only changed where necessary - a new index is a relatively small change that can result in big improvements within the environment, however. I would not approach an extension in the same way though :) my 2 penneth, neil From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lee, WookSent: 19 April 2006 16:48To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: 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 joeSent: Wednesday, April 19, 2006 4:19 AMTo: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: 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 AMTo: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: 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 KazimerSent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 5:55 PMTo: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: 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 queriesDate: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 17:03:35 -0400From: [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, WookSent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 4:47 PMTo: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: 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 DesmondSent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 11:50 AMTo: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: 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 WeerasingheSent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 2:15 PMTo: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: Re: [ActiveDir] stupid ldap queries bummer! I meant adfind -schema -f "&(objectclass=attributeschema)(ismemberofpart
RE: [ActiveDir] stupid ldap queries
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
RE: [ActiveDir] stupid ldap queries
My recent favorite was a rather "popular" software vendor told me I needed to increase my maxIdleConnectionTime for the Directory higher than 900s (15 mins)because their connection was timing out while processing the first page of 1000 users, and having the connection dropped before they went back for the next. I basically told them if they can't process 1000 users in less than 15 minutes, then they surely could not handle my entire user population which they were trying to loop through. I think we calculated we would have to increase that time to to over 32 hours so their crapplication could complete. :) I'll let you guess what did not happen in that situation. :) Jef From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] stupid ldap queriesDate: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 09:07:09 -0400 Oh I love those! The app dev folks (or vendor) tell you that your AD is broken because it is so slow... Yep I have been there. Indexing is fine, just index things you regularly query on, no reason to suck up resources and perf for indexes that aren't used. For instance, indexing all attributes doesn't make sense but if you have a crit app or a bunch of apps using a query with no indexed attributes or having a specific attribute that could seriously help perf it is good to add. Wook, I think, is being a trifle facetious and plugging his creative work. :) Schema updates are goodness when done correctly and smartly. There is no reason to be scared of doing them, just be scared of doing them wrong. -- 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 10:32 PMTo: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] stupid ldap queries It’s only been that one. Okay, maybe one other that was indexed, but that was because a very large network/voip vendor that required a schema extension subsequently used one of these attributes in all of their queries. In a large implementation (which they clearly had never seen) the query would take a year to complete. Of course, in their lab with 5 objects, it completed in milliseconds. :m:dsm:cci:mvp | marcusoh.blogspot.com From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lee, WookSent: Wednesday, April 19, 2006 11:48 AMTo: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: 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 joeSent: Wednesday, April 19, 2006 4:19 AMTo: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: 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 AMTo: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: 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 KazimerSent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 5:55 PMTo: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: 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 queriesDate: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 17:03:35 -0400From: [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, WookSent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 4:47 PMTo: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] stupid ldap queries I never understood why Microsoft
RE: [ActiveDir] stupid ldap queries
Oh I love those! The app dev folks (or vendor) tell you that your AD is broken because it is so slow... Yep I have been there. Indexing is fine, just index things you regularly query on, no reason to suck up resources and perf for indexes that aren't used. For instance, indexing all attributes doesn't make sense but if you have a crit app or a bunch of apps using a query with no indexed attributes or having a specific attribute that could seriously help perf it is good to add. Wook, I think, is being a trifle facetious and plugging his creative work. :) Schema updates are goodness when done correctly and smartly. There is no reason to be scared of doing them, just be scared of doing them wrong. -- 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 10:32 PMTo: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] stupid ldap queries It’s only been that one. Okay, maybe one other that was indexed, but that was because a very large network/voip vendor that required a schema extension subsequently used one of these attributes in all of their queries. In a large implementation (which they clearly had never seen) the query would take a year to complete. Of course, in their lab with 5 objects, it completed in milliseconds. :m:dsm:cci:mvp | marcusoh.blogspot.com From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lee, WookSent: Wednesday, April 19, 2006 11:48 AMTo: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: 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 joeSent: Wednesday, April 19, 2006 4:19 AMTo: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: 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 AMTo: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: 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 KazimerSent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 5:55 PMTo: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: 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 queriesDate: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 17:03:35 -0400From: [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, WookSent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 4:47 PMTo: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: 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 DesmondSent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 11:50 AMTo: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: 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 i
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, WookSent: Wednesday, April 19, 2006 11:48 AMTo: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: 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 joeSent: Wednesday, April 19, 2006 4:19 AMTo: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: 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 AMTo: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: 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 KazimerSent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 5:55 PMTo: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: 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 queriesDate: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 17:03:35 -0400From: [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, WookSent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 4:47 PMTo: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: 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 DesmondSent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 11:50 AMTo: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: 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 WeerasingheSent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 2:15 PMTo: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: 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
RE: [ActiveDir] stupid ldap queries
It’s only been that one. Okay, maybe one other that was indexed, but that was because a very large network/voip vendor that required a schema extension subsequently used one of these attributes in all of their queries. In a large implementation (which they clearly had never seen) the query would take a year to complete. Of course, in their lab with 5 objects, it completed in milliseconds. :m:dsm:cci:mvp | marcusoh.blogspot.com 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 wa
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 M@ On 4/18/06, Brian Desmond < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Not sure I understand the question fully, but, no objectClass is not > indexed. objectCategory is. So if you want to get all users you do: > > (&(objectCategory=person)(objectClass=user)) > > Thanks, > Brian Desmond > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > c - 312.731.3132 > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:ActiveDir- > > [EMA
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 AMTo: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: 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 KazimerSent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 5:55 PMTo: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: 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 queriesDate: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 17:03:35 -0400From: [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, WookSent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 4:47 PMTo: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: 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 DesmondSent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 11:50 AMTo: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: 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 WeerasingheSent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 2:15 PMTo: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: 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 M@ On 4/18/06, Brian Desmond < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> Not sure I understand the question fully, but, no objectClass is not> indexed. objectCategory is. So if you want to get all users you do: > > (&(objectCategory=person)(objectClass=user))> > Thanks,> Brian Desmond> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > c - 312.731.3132 > > > > > -Original Message-> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:ActiveDir- > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Matheesha Weerasinghe> > Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 1:00 PM > > To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org> > Subject: [ActiveDir] stupid ldap queries> >> > All> >> > Could s
RE: [ActiveDir] stupid ldap queries
t again, if someone asks me if they should index objectclass, I will usually respond with, you mean you haven't already??? Seriously, test it in your lab, make sure non of your management or LOB apps have an issue with it, specifically look for cases where they are using the fact that an attribute is indexed or not as a indicator that you can sort on the attribute because that is one issue I have personally seen. If you run into that or some other issue, do not hesitate to tell the vendor, you can even have them contact me if you want and I can explain. Most vendors will find I am very easy to get along with if they are willing to change their evil ways and I will explain the "better" ways to do things they may be running into. I like doing it because it makes things better for me when I walk into companies and know that vendor xyz "gets it" and I don't have to focus quite so much on things they make when looking for problems. Plus I like having various vendors being aware of me and being willing to listen because it makes it easier to get their attention if I find a problem with their products. joe [1] The exception here where this is ok is the EXISTS filter which is objectclass=*, this is perfectly fine to use. [2] In the tradition of naming something that has absolutely nothing to do with anything about the thing -- O'Reilly Active Directory Third Edition - http://www.joeware.net/win/ad3e.htm -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matheesha Weerasinghe Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 1:00 PM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: [ActiveDir] stupid ldap queries All Could someone please explain how Non-indexed queries (e.g. "objectClass=user") fall in this category? I saw this mentioned in some slides by Gil and couldnt quite understand what he meant. Isn't objectclass indexed as part of the partial attribute set? Thanks M@ List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx List FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx List FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
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 M@ On 4/18/06, Brian Desmond < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Not sure I understand the question fully, but, no objectClass is not > indexed. objectCategory is. So if you want to get all users you do: > > (&(objectCategory=person)(objectClass=user)) > > Thanks, > Brian Desmond > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > c - 312.731.3132 > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:ActiveDir- > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Matheesha Weerasinghe > > Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 1:00 PM > > To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org > > Subject: [ActiveDir] stupid ldap queries > > > > All > > > > Could someone please explain how Non-indexed queries (e.g. > > "objectClass=user") fall in this category? I saw this mentioned in > some > > slides by Gil and couldnt quite understand what he meant. Isn't > > objectclass indexed as part of the partial attribute set? > > > > Thanks > > > > M@ > > List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx > > List FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx > > List archive: http://www.mail- > > archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ > List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx > List FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx > List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ >
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 queriesDate: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 17:03:35 -0400From: [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, WookSent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 4:47 PMTo: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: 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 DesmondSent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 11:50 AMTo: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: 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 WeerasingheSent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 2:15 PMTo: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: 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 M@ On 4/18/06, Brian Desmond < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> Not sure I understand the question fully, but, no objectClass is not> indexed. objectCategory is. So if you want to get all users you do: > > (&(objectCategory=person)(objectClass=user))> > Thanks,> Brian Desmond> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > c - 312.731.3132 > > > > > -Original Message-> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:ActiveDir- > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Matheesha Weerasinghe> > Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 1:00 PM > > To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org> > Subject: [ActiveDir] stupid ldap queries> >> > All> >> > Could someone please explain how Non-indexed queries (e.g.> > "objectClass=user") fall in this category? I saw this mentioned in > some> > slides by Gil and couldnt quite understand what he meant. Isn't> > objectclass indexed as part of the partial attribute set?> >> > Thanks> >> > M@ > > List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx> > List FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx > > List archive: http://www.mail-> > archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/> List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx> List FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx> List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/>
Re: [ActiveDir] stupid ldap queries
Thanks all for the clarification!M@On 4/18/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 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 M@ On 4/18/06, Brian Desmond < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Not sure I understand the question fully, but, no objectClass is not > indexed. objectCategory is. So if you want to get all users you do: > > (&(objectCategory=person)(objectClass=user)) > > Thanks, > Brian Desmond > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > c - 312.731.3132 > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto: ActiveDir- > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Matheesha Weerasinghe > > Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 1:00 PM > > To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org > > Subject: [ActiveDir] stupid ldap queries > > > > All > > > > Could someone please explain how Non-indexed queries (e.g. > > "objectClass=user") fall in this category? I saw this mentioned in > some > > slides by Gil and couldnt quite understand what he meant. Isn't > > objectclass indexed as part of the partial attribute set? > > > > Thanks > > > > M@ > > List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx > > List FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx > > List archive: http://www.mail- > > archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ > List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx > List FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx > List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ >
RE: [ActiveDir] stupid ldap queries
Yeah our SunONE environment is setup that way – AD drives the SunONE LDAP guy crazy. I suppose I could be generous and index it to save him some trouble but then again that might squelch some of the Microsoft sucks Sun sucks discussions and those are always amusing. Thanks, Brian Desmond [EMAIL PROTECTED] c - 312.731.3132 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 M@ On 4/18/06, Brian Desmond < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Not sure I understand the question fully, but, no objectClass is not > indexed. objectCategory is. So if you want to get all users you do: > > (&(objectCategory=person)(objectClass=user)) > > Thanks, > Brian Desmond > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > c - 312.731.3132 > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:ActiveDir- > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Matheesha Weerasinghe > > Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 1:00 PM > > To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org > > Subject: [ActiveDir] stupid ldap queries > > > > All > > > > Could someone please explain how Non-indexed queries (e.g. > > "objectClass=user") fall in this category? I saw this mentioned in > some > > slides by Gil and couldnt quite understand what he meant. Isn't > > objectclass indexed as part of the partial attribute set? > > > > Thanks > > > > M@ > > List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx > > List FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx > > List archive: http://www.mail- > > archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ > List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx > List FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx > List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ >
RE: [ActiveDir] stupid ldap queries
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 M@ On 4/18/06, Brian Desmond < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Not sure I understand the question fully, but, no objectClass is not > indexed. objectCategory is. So if you want to get all users you do: > > (&(objectCategory=person)(objectClass=user)) > > Thanks, > Brian Desmond > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > c - 312.731.3132 > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:ActiveDir- > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Matheesha Weerasinghe > > Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 1:00 PM > > To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org > > Subject: [ActiveDir] stupid ldap queries > > > > All > > > > Could someone please explain how Non-indexed queries (e.g. > > "objectClass=user") fall in this category? I saw this mentioned in > some > > slides by Gil and couldnt quite understand what he meant. Isn't > > objectclass indexed as part of the partial attribute set? > > > > Thanks > > > > M@ > > List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx > > List FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx > > List archive: http://www.mail- > > archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ > List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx > List FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx > List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ >
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 M@ On 4/18/06, Brian Desmond < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Not sure I understand the question fully, but, no objectClass is not > indexed. objectCategory is. So if you want to get all users you do: > > (&(objectCategory=person)(objectClass=user)) > > Thanks, > Brian Desmond > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > c - 312.731.3132 > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:ActiveDir- > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Matheesha Weerasinghe > > Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 1:00 PM > > To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org > > Subject: [ActiveDir] stupid ldap queries > > > > All > > > > Could someone please explain how Non-indexed queries (e.g. > > "objectClass=user") fall in this category? I saw this mentioned in > some > > slides by Gil and couldnt quite understand what he meant. Isn't > > objectclass indexed as part of the partial attribute set? > > > > Thanks > > > > M@ > > List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx > > List FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx > > List archive: http://www.mail- > > archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ > List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx > List FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx > List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ >
RE: [ActiveDir] stupid ldap queries
Hello Matheesha, if you want to check if it is indexed you have to check if bit 1 of the searchFlags Attribute is set. You can do this using an LDAP-Query like (&(objectCategory=attributeSchema)(searchFlags:1.2.840.113556.1.4.803:=1)) Using dsquery this would be dsquery * cn=schema,cn=configuration,dc=example,dc=com -filter "(&(objectCategory=attributeSchema)(searchFlags:1.2.840.113556.1.4.803:=1))" -attr name If you want to set the index, verify that searchFlags AND 1 = 0, then add 1 to seachFlags. Gruesse - Sincerely, Ulf B. Simon-Weidner MVP-Book "Windows XP - Die Expertentipps": http://tinyurl.com/44zcz Weblog: http://msmvps.org/UlfBSimonWeidner Website: http://www.windowsserverfaq.org Profile: http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile=""> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matheesha WeerasingheSent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 8:14 PMTo: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: Re: [ActiveDir] stupid ldap queries 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 M@ On 4/18/06, Brian Desmond < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> Not sure I understand the question fully, but, no objectClass is not> indexed. objectCategory is. So if you want to get all users you do: > > (&(objectCategory=person)(objectClass=user))> > Thanks,> Brian Desmond> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > c - 312.731.3132 > > > > > -Original Message-> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:ActiveDir- > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Matheesha Weerasinghe> > Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 1:00 PM > > To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org> > Subject: [ActiveDir] stupid ldap queries> >> > All> >> > Could someone please explain how Non-indexed queries (e.g.> > "objectClass=user") fall in this category? I saw this mentioned in > some> > slides by Gil and couldnt quite understand what he meant. Isn't> > objectclass indexed as part of the partial attribute set?> >> > Thanks> >> > M@ > > List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx> > List FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx > > List archive: http://www.mail-> > archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/> List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx> List FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx> List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/>
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 M@ On 4/18/06, Brian Desmond < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Not sure I understand the question fully, but, no objectClass is not > indexed. objectCategory is. So if you want to get all users you do: > > (&(objectCategory=person)(objectClass=user)) > > Thanks, > Brian Desmond > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > c - 312.731.3132 > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:ActiveDir- > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Matheesha Weerasinghe > > Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 1:00 PM > > To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org > > Subject: [ActiveDir] stupid ldap queries > > > > All > > > > Could someone please explain how Non-indexed queries (e.g. > > "objectClass=user") fall in this category? I saw this mentioned in > some > > slides by Gil and couldnt quite understand what he meant. Isn't > > objectclass indexed as part of the partial attribute set? > > > > Thanks > > > > M@ > > List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx > > List FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx > > List archive: http://www.mail- > > archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ > List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx > List FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx > List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ >
RE: [ActiveDir] stupid ldap queries
I think you are confusing indexed with "is in the global catalog". They are not synonymous. You can have one without the other just fine. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matheesha WeerasingheSent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 11:14 AMTo: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: Re: [ActiveDir] stupid ldap queries 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 M@ On 4/18/06, Brian Desmond < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> Not sure I understand the question fully, but, no objectClass is not> indexed. objectCategory is. So if you want to get all users you do: > > (&(objectCategory=person)(objectClass=user))> > Thanks,> Brian Desmond> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > c - 312.731.3132 > > > > > -Original Message-> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:ActiveDir- > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Matheesha Weerasinghe> > Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 1:00 PM > > To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org> > Subject: [ActiveDir] stupid ldap queries> >> > All> >> > Could someone please explain how Non-indexed queries (e.g.> > "objectClass=user") fall in this category? I saw this mentioned in > some> > slides by Gil and couldnt quite understand what he meant. Isn't> > objectclass indexed as part of the partial attribute set?> >> > Thanks> >> > M@ > > List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx> > List FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx > > List archive: http://www.mail-> > archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/> List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx> List FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx> List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/>
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. ThanksM@On 4/18/06, Brian Desmond < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> Not sure I understand the question fully, but, no objectClass is not> indexed. objectCategory is. So if you want to get all users you do: > > (&(objectCategory=person)(objectClass=user))> > Thanks,> Brian Desmond> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > c - 312.731.3132 > > > > > -Original Message-> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:ActiveDir- > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Matheesha Weerasinghe> > Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 1:00 PM > > To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org> > Subject: [ActiveDir] stupid ldap queries> >> > All> >> > Could someone please explain how Non-indexed queries (e.g.> > "objectClass=user") fall in this category? I saw this mentioned in > some> > slides by Gil and couldnt quite understand what he meant. Isn't> > objectclass indexed as part of the partial attribute set?> >> > Thanks> >> > M@ > > List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx> > List FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx > > List archive: http://www.mail-> > archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/> List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx> List FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx> List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/>
Re: [ActiveDir] stupid ldap queries
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. ThanksM@On 4/18/06, Brian Desmond < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> Not sure I understand the question fully, but, no objectClass is not> indexed. objectCategory is. So if you want to get all users you do: > > (&(objectCategory=person)(objectClass=user))> > Thanks,> Brian Desmond> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > c - 312.731.3132 > > > > > -Original Message-> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:ActiveDir- > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Matheesha Weerasinghe> > Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 1:00 PM > > To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org> > Subject: [ActiveDir] stupid ldap queries> >> > All> >> > Could someone please explain how Non-indexed queries (e.g.> > "objectClass=user") fall in this category? I saw this mentioned in > some> > slides by Gil and couldnt quite understand what he meant. Isn't> > objectclass indexed as part of the partial attribute set?> >> > Thanks> >> > M@ > > List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx> > List FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx > > List archive: http://www.mail-> > archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/> List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx> List FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx> List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/>
Re: [ActiveDir] stupid ldap queries
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. ThanksM@On 4/18/06, Brian Desmond <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> Not sure I understand the question fully, but, no objectClass is not> indexed. objectCategory is. So if you want to get all users you do: > > (&(objectCategory=person)(objectClass=user))> > Thanks,> Brian Desmond> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > c - 312.731.3132 > > > > > -Original Message-> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:ActiveDir- > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Matheesha Weerasinghe> > Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 1:00 PM> > To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org> > Subject: [ActiveDir] stupid ldap queries> >> > All> >> > Could someone please explain how Non-indexed queries (e.g.> > "objectClass=user") fall in this category? I saw this mentioned in > some> > slides by Gil and couldnt quite understand what he meant. Isn't> > objectclass indexed as part of the partial attribute set?> >> > Thanks> >> > M@ > > List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx> > List FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx > > List archive: http://www.mail-> > archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/> List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx> List FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx> List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/>
RE: [ActiveDir] stupid ldap queries
Not sure I understand the question fully, but, no objectClass is not indexed. objectCategory is. So if you want to get all users you do: (&(objectCategory=person)(objectClass=user)) Thanks, Brian Desmond [EMAIL PROTECTED] c - 312.731.3132 > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:ActiveDir- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matheesha Weerasinghe > Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 1:00 PM > To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org > Subject: [ActiveDir] stupid ldap queries > > All > > Could someone please explain how Non-indexed queries (e.g. > "objectClass=user") fall in this category? I saw this mentioned in some > slides by Gil and couldnt quite understand what he meant. Isn't > objectclass indexed as part of the partial attribute set? > > Thanks > > M@ > List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx > List FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx > List archive: http://www.mail- > archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx List FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
[ActiveDir] stupid ldap queries
All Could someone please explain how Non-indexed queries (e.g. "objectClass=user") fall in this category? I saw this mentioned in some slides by Gil and couldnt quite understand what he meant. Isn't objectclass indexed as part of the partial attribute set? Thanks M@ List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx List FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
