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: [email protected]
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: [email protected]
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: [email protected]
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: [email protected]
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: [email protected]
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: [email protected]
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: [email protected]
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: [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
I did the same after I saw some of the activedir folks post about
doing it... :-)
: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: [email protected]
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: [email protected]
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] <mailto:[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: [email protected]
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]
<mailto:[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]
<mailto:[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]
<mailto:[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] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> c - 312.731.3132
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [mailto:ActiveDir-
<mailto:ActiveDir->
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] On
Behalf Of Matheesha Weerasinghe
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 1:00 PM
> > To: [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
> > 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
<http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx>
> > List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
<http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx>
> > List archive: http://www.mail- <http://www.mail-/>
> > archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
<http://archive.com/[email protected]/>
> List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
<http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx>
> List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
<http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx>
> List archive:
http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
<http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/>
>
________________________________
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/
