Re: >= (greater or equal) and <= (lower or equal) operators in search filter

[Dustin Doris <openldap@mail.doris.name>]

On Fri, 16 Jul 2004, Andreas wrote:

> On Fri, Jul 16, 2004 at 10:05:27AM +0100, Greg Matthews wrote:
> > Is there no call for this sort of matching in filters then? Doesnt
> > anyone need to:
> >
> > ldapsearch -x "(uidnumber>=1000)"
>
> I need to, but I can't. The RFC2307 schema misses that, and my questions about
> why remain unanswered in the nss_ldap mailing list.
> What I'm doing for now is listing all uidnumbers and parsing the output with
> a shell script (!).
>
> > Is it considered breaking standard schema to add ORDERING rules into
> > them?
>
> I would love to and I'm about to throw in the towel and "break" this standard
> schema by adding this (and other) rules. A broken or difficult standard is of
> no use.
>

I have added that rule to some of my schemas because of the need to do <=
and >= searches.  However, since I can't index a search like that, I do
find them to be particularly slow, especially when I've got about 10,000
records.