On 08/05/2019 03:05 PM, Mark Reynolds wrote:


On 8/5/19 8:57 AM, Mark Reynolds wrote:


On 8/4/19 9:55 AM, Lutz Berger wrote:
Hello,

I've come across a web site
that claims that an "equality index" is only allowed for attributes
that have "EQUALITY" in their description, "otherwise terrible things
will happen".

For example
>> attributeTypes: ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.13299.2.3.7.xxx NAME 'abCLZ'  EQUALITY caseIgnoreMatch SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.15 SINGLE-VALUE X-ORIGIN 'user defined' )

For the sake of correctness, I've tried to build an equality-index for an attribute missing such description, e.g.

>> attributeTypes: ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.13299.2.3.7.xyz NAME 'abID'  SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.15 SINGLE-VALUE X-ORIGIN 'user defined' )
     

So what is happening is that the first example has a "matching rule" defined:   EQUALITY caseIgnoreMatch.  If you define such an attribute with this syntax you MUST have an equality index for that attribute.  Otherwise the server has to manually perform this matching - which is VERY expensive.  Hence why you see an etime of 26 seconds.  Once its indexed for equality the matching rule can efficiently be processed.

Sorry this is actually incorrect.  The matching rule is not the problem in the case, since you are not using the matching rule in the search filter.   See https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-us/red_hat_directory_server/10/html/administration_guide/finding_directory_entries-ldap_search_filters#using-matching-rules    So this is just an issue of basic indexing.  You are doing an equality search, so you need an equality index, otherwise the server has to sequentially scan the database for matching entries.

and regarding  the question of defining the matching rule in the schema I think there is a default matching rule used for the syntax

Regards,

Mark

But you do not NEED to use this matching rule: EQUALITY caseIgnoreMatch, unless you have a requirement for it.  But you should always index your attribute for how you plan to use it.  In this case you are doing an equality search:  <ATTR>=<some exact value> so you would want an equality index (regardless of the presence of a matching rule).

HTH,

Mark


Withour EQ-Index:
[root@ur1 slapd-ur1devims]# fgrep "conn=34" access
[03/Aug/2019:14:21:00 +0200] conn=34 fd=65 slot=65 connection from 192.168.69.152 to 192.168.69.152
[03/Aug/2019:14:21:00 +0200] conn=34 op=0 BIND dn="cn=Directory Manager" method=128 version=3
[03/Aug/2019:14:21:00 +0200] conn=34 op=0 RESULT err=0 tag=97 nentries=0 etime=0 dn="cn=directory manager"
[03/Aug/2019:14:21:00 +0200] conn=34 op=1 SRCH base="ou=users,c=de,o=creditreform" scope=2 filter="(abID=777777777022544)" attrs=ALL
[03/Aug/2019:14:21:26 +0200] conn=34 op=1 RESULT err=0 tag=101 nentries=1 etime=26 notes=A
[03/Aug/2019:14:21:26 +0200] conn=34 op=2 UNBIND
[03/Aug/2019:14:21:26 +0200] conn=34 op=2 fd=65 closed - U1
[root@ur1 slapd-ur1devims]#

With EQ-Index:
[root@ur1 slapd-ur1devims]# fgrep "conn=35" access
[03/Aug/2019:14:24:18 +0200] conn=35 fd=65 slot=65 connection from 192.168.69.152 to 192.168.69.152
[03/Aug/2019:14:24:18 +0200] conn=35 op=0 BIND dn="cn=Directory Manager" method=128 version=3
[03/Aug/2019:14:24:18 +0200] conn=35 op=0 RESULT err=0 tag=97 nentries=0 etime=0 dn="cn=directory manager"
[03/Aug/2019:14:24:18 +0200] conn=35 op=1 SRCH base="ou=users,c=de,o=creditreform" scope=2 filter="(abID=777777777022544)" attrs=ALL
[03/Aug/2019:14:24:18 +0200] conn=35 op=1 RESULT err=0 tag=101 nentries=1 etime=0
[03/Aug/2019:14:24:18 +0200] conn=35 op=2 UNBIND
[03/Aug/2019:14:24:18 +0200] conn=35 op=2 fd=65 closed - U1

My question is now, is the EQUALITY part of the schema description really necessary
for building equality-indexes on attributes, since I couldn't reproduce any obvious
problem.


From the access pattern I see in the access log, building such an index is
definitely beneficial in sense of performance.

Thanks for your efforts!

Best regards,
  Lutz


--
Dipl.-Inform. Univ. Lutz Berger
Email: lutz.berger@multigrid.de


_______________________________________________
389-users mailing list -- 389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to 389-users-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org
-- 

389 Directory Server Development Team

_______________________________________________
389-users mailing list -- 389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to 389-users-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org
-- 

389 Directory Server Development Team


_______________________________________________
389-users mailing list -- 389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to 389-users-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org

-- 
Red Hat GmbH, http://www.de.redhat.com/, Registered seat: Grasbrunn, 
Commercial register: Amtsgericht Muenchen, HRB 153243,
Managing Directors: Charles Cachera, Michael Cunningham, Michael O'Neill, Eric Shander