Re: question about limits

[JJ van Gorkum <job@knowzone.org>]

Pierangelo Masarati wrote:

> > [...]
>
>
> I note that most of those ACLs are invalid for 2.2.X, while you claim you
> tested both 2.1.X and 2.2.X with comparable results.  Valid corresponding
> ACLs for 2.2 would be
>  
[...]

The ACL I used for 2.2 was 1 rule

access to *
       by * read

This was done to rule out the possibility that ACL's were my problem... 
(And the problem was still there)

> If by "1 ACL" you mean the only one that is activated by your search, then
> we're back to the ACL problem.  But in your case I rather suspect some
> indexing problem, in the sense that for one search (the "final" one)
> you're not hitting the ALLID limit, so indices are used, while in the
> other (the "any" case) you're, so indices are not used.  I suggest you
> carefully recheck how things behave in 2.2.X and, if the problem persists,
> try an alternative way of filtering data, e.g. adding a "mail domain"
> attribute for exact searches, or anything like that.
>  
With the ACL used for the 2.2.17, I ruled out that it was a ACL problem...

I have to look into the ALLID limit thing...

--
JJ van Gorkum                             Knowledge Zone
If UNIX isn't the solution, you've got the wrong problem