>>> Michael Ströder <[email protected]> schrieb am 19.08.2019 um 10:44 in Nachricht <[email protected]>: > On 8/19/19 9:24 AM, Ulrich Windl wrote: >>>>> Michael Ströder <[email protected]> schrieb am 17.08.2019 um 20:37 in >> Nachricht <[email protected]>: >>> On 8/17/19 2:52 PM, Marc Roos wrote: >>>> Over time I am adding indexes until there are no such messages >>>> (except for some incidental queries). >>> And that's exactly the wrong thing to do! >>> That's why I requested to disable those messages in ITS#7796: >>> >>> https://www.openldap.org/its/index.cgi?findid=7796 >>> >>> By adding random indexes just to get rid of not-indexed warnings you can >>> dramatically lower your search performance. You should only add an index >>> if you analyzed that clients send search requests with filters which can >>> make good use of the index. >> >> I agree that some thinking before adding an index isn't a bad idea, but > still >> I think these messages are important as they can make you start thinking. > > Experience shows that people do not analyse the LDAP filters but just > add an index to get rid of the message. You can find that many times in > various discussion / Q&A forums. > > It's also bad that this message is written at any loglevel. Depending on > your config it can be written many times for the same attribute during > processing a single search operation, e.g. when processing the numerous > set-based ACLs in my Æ-DIR. 50+ senseless log lines for a single search > operation with deref control is not fun.
I could imagine that either... * writing each message only once since slapd started * suppressing each message for a configurable time interval (like 1 hour, 1 day, 1 week, etc.) ... would be a solution people could live with. As for the case: Can you present an example here where an index added as suggested makes performance actually worse? > > Ciao, Michael.
