On Wed, Aug 24, 2005 at 06:17:50PM -0700, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
> >The argument of "install openldap somewhere else where its libraries
> >won't be seen by the other programs" doesn't work for a distro. It works
> >for you, for me or for a company providing (open)ldap services, but not
> >fo
--On Wednesday, August 24, 2005 9:22 PM -0300 Andreas Hasenack
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Em Quarta 24 Agosto 2005 19:44, Quanah Gibson-Mount escreveu:
I agree, why not? I do. :P But this isn't necessarily an argument for
compiling from source. It is an argument against using Debian's
pac
Em Quarta 24 Agosto 2005 19:44, Quanah Gibson-Mount escreveu:
> I agree, why not? I do. :P But this isn't necessarily an argument for
> compiling from source. It is an argument against using Debian's packaged
> releases since they are inadequate. There are other packages of OpenLDAP
> that ke
--On Wednesday, August 24, 2005 5:09 PM -0500 John Madden
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This is ITS#2588, fixed in OpenLDAP 2.3. The fix is also in the version
of OpenLDAP 2.2 packaged by Symas in our CDS products. Using
vendor-supplied software instead of compiling your own is OK, as long as
y
> This is ITS#2588, fixed in OpenLDAP 2.3. The fix is also in the version
> of OpenLDAP 2.2 packaged by Symas in our CDS products. Using
> vendor-supplied software instead of compiling your own is OK, as long as
> you choose the right vendor to supply the packages. ;)
Until it's marked "Stable" or
--On Wednesday, August 24, 2005 3:22 PM -0500 John Madden
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm trying to stick with the .deb's for ease of maintenance, so I'll
have to work around this another way.
If you like, I can give you a list of reasons as to why this is a poor
decision. :)
But only if y
--On Wednesday, August 24, 2005 12:13 PM -0700 Quanah Gibson-Mount
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
index_substr_any_len
Specify the length used for subany indices. An
attribute value must have at least this many characters
in order to be processed. Attribu
John Madden wrote:
Good. More testing shows much better results in light of that info and I can
probably live with that design. However, I'm still seeing a bad case:
uid=test* : 28 seconds
# numEntries: 111
uid=test2* : 28 seconds
# numEntries: 11
This is ITS#2588, fixed in OpenLD
> No. Nothing about LDBM has any relevance to back-bdb.
Good to hear. :)
> As already noted, by default a substring term must have at least 4
> characters in order for indexing to have any effect.
> subinitial and subfinal default to a minimum of two characters, so this
> search didn't use the i
>> I'm trying to stick with the .deb's for ease of maintenance, so I'll have
>> to work around this another way.
>
> If you like, I can give you a list of reasons as to why this is a poor
> decision. :)
>
> But only if you ask. :P
It can only hurt a little, right?
My reasons for not wanting to de
> You need OpenLDAP 2.3 for these settings to be found in the man page. I'm
> pretty sure they don't exist as configurable options for slapd.conf under
> 2.2, either. You can probably tweak the 2.2 source to do the same stuff
> though.
I'm trying to stick with the .deb's for ease of maintenance,
--On Wednesday, August 24, 2005 3:04 PM -0500 John Madden
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You need OpenLDAP 2.3 for these settings to be found in the man page.
I'm pretty sure they don't exist as configurable options for slapd.conf
under 2.2, either. You can probably tweak the 2.2 source to do t
"John Madden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> 2. the default settings for subinitial and subfinal, so changing this
>>default settings may increase your search speed, see slapd.conf(5)
>>
>> But I would vote for default settings of subinitial and subfinal.
>
> Could you be more clear? There ar
John Madden wrote:
"uid=*0371*" dn
# numResponses: 125
# numEntries: 124
real0m0.052s
Further research on the "allidsthreshold" concept mentioned in the old list
thread
lead me to SLAPD_LDBM_MIN_MAXIDS, which, at 8192-4, is likely too low for a
million objects that were created sequen
--On Wednesday, August 24, 2005 2:00 PM -0500 John Madden
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
2. the default settings for subinitial and subfinal, so changing this
default settings may increase your search speed, see slapd.conf(5)
But I would vote for default settings of subinitial and subfinal.
> It is quite clear in the docs that the default minimum substring indexing
> starts at 3 characters. So the "*2" and the "*22" substring searches will
> not be using the index at all unless you've tweaked this.
No, I've made no mods. So "*22" shouldn't be on an index, yet it's quite fast.
That
--On Wednesday, August 24, 2005 12:11 PM -0700 Quanah Gibson-Mount
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
--On Wednesday, August 24, 2005 1:46 PM -0500 John Madden
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It is quite clear in the docs that the default minimum substring
indexing starts at 3 characters. So the "*2
> 2. the default settings for subinitial and subfinal, so changing this
>default settings may increase your search speed, see slapd.conf(5)
>
> But I would vote for default settings of subinitial and subfinal.
Could you be more clear? There are no mentions of subinitial/subfinal in the
manpag
--On Wednesday, August 24, 2005 1:46 PM -0500 John Madden
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It is quite clear in the docs that the default minimum substring indexing
starts at 3 characters. So the "*2" and the "*22" substring searches
will not be using the index at all unless you've tweaked this.
--On Wednesday, August 24, 2005 6:43 PM +0200 Dieter Kluenter
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
2. the default settings for subinitial and subfinal, so changing this
default settings may increase your search speed, see slapd.conf(5)
But I would vote for default settings of subinitial and subfi
--On Wednesday, August 24, 2005 11:08 AM -0500 John Madden
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"uid=*0371*" dn
# numResponses: 125
# numEntries: 124
real0m0.052s
Further research on the "allidsthreshold" concept mentioned in the old
list thread lead me to SLAPD_LDBM_MIN_MAXIDS, which, at 8192-4
"John Madden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This is something of a repeat of a previous post:
>
> http://www.openldap.org/lists/openldap-software/200101/msg00542.html
>
> I think I'm seeing the same sort of behavior. Basically, I've got a directory
> with 1 million objects on a machine with 4GB R
John Madden wrote:
This is something of a repeat of a previous post:
http://www.openldap.org/lists/openldap-software/200101/msg00542.html
I think I'm seeing the same sort of behavior. Basically, I've got a directory
with 1 million objects on a machine with 4GB RAM, a cachesize of 10, and a
> "uid=*0371*" dn
> # numResponses: 125
> # numEntries: 124
> real0m0.052s
Further research on the "allidsthreshold" concept mentioned in the old list
thread
lead me to SLAPD_LDBM_MIN_MAXIDS, which, at 8192-4, is likely too low for a
million objects that were created sequentially. Unfortunat
This is something of a repeat of a previous post:
http://www.openldap.org/lists/openldap-software/200101/msg00542.html
I think I'm seeing the same sort of behavior. Basically, I've got a directory
with 1 million objects on a machine with 4GB RAM, a cachesize of 10, and a
bdb
cache of 2GB.
25 matches
Mail list logo
