Re: [WebDNA] group searching not working as expected.
This WebDNA talk-list message is from 2010
It keeps the original formatting.
numero = 106062
interpreted = N
texte = Hi Terry Thanks for jumping in! That is just what I had thought.. and so the reason I posted (when I saw that the search then does not work the way we are thinking). I.e. if I add 'rq' to those 2 group params/comparisons.. then the search finds nothing, as opposed to finding the 2 records that I had at first thought it would find. i.e. this: [search db=my.db&group1field=feeled1_Fruit &group2field = feeled1_Fruit &eqgroup1datarq =1apple&eqgroup2datarq=3cherry&wsfeeled3_HowUseddatarq=[URL]baked dessert[/URL]&max=500] finds zero records. Now I can imagine how those results make sense (i.e. a search which requires *everything*.. thus requires one field to have 2 different values - which none do, thus zero records found).. but/and so my question still remains: If you were coding this, how would you write the search so that it finds ONLY record #1 & #3, *using grouped fields*? (see my original post (OP) for the database content) Terry can you write a search *using grouped fields*.. which meets this requirement: > (I need to be able to tell the search to return records where: > -[feeled3_HowUsed] = baked dessert, *AND* > -[feeled1_Fruit] = (*either* "1apple" or "3cherry" or "4mango" > > ...which is only records #1 and #3.) ? Thanks for chiming in! -Govinda On Dec 29, 2010, at 9:24 AM, Terry Wilson wrote: > Coming in a little late to this, but Ken's adding rq is all that's > needed. Without rq, unless there is only one search parameter, it > will find anything that fits something. So you'd want to add that to > all 3 parts of the search. Allreqd=t is not the same as adding rq to > your search parameters. It means that each part of the search has to > find something. > > > On Tue, 28 Dec 2010 22:54:14 -0500 > Govinda
wrote: >> Hi Ken >> Thanks for that! >> It does work... even without the "&allreqd=T&allblnk=T". (see >> *note below.) >> I need to check to be sure that none of my 'words' that I might >> search for in the field (corresponding to the [feeled1_Fruit] >> field in my example) might have a word-delimiting char in their >> values.. (like a space char). If not, then I think what you >> suggested will be OK. I wanted to do it the other way so that >> regardless of what characters might be in the value, it would not >> break. I guess if I find any word-break chars in real values.. >> then I'll get creative with "wbrk" & "fbrk". >> With regard to the grouped-field technique, I assume that the moral >> of the story is that grouping fields only works when there are no >> other field comparisons going on, other than the grouped field(s). >> *Side note: >> Interesting that when I add 'allreqd=T' to my original search, like >> so: >> [search db = my .db &group1field = feeled1_Fruit &group2field = >> feeled1_Fruit &eqgroup1data >> =1apple&eqgroup2data=3cherry&wsfeeled3_HowUseddatarq=[URL]baked >> dessert[/URL]&allreqd=T&max=500] >> ...it does not seem to have any effect at all. >> Thanks again! >> ------------ >> Govinda >> On Dec 28, 2010, at 10:24 PM, Kenneth Grome wrote: >>> Have you tried this: >>> &eqfeeled3_HowUseddatarq=[url]baked dessert[/url] >>> &wofeeled1_Fruitdatarq=[url]1apple 3cherry 4mango[/url] >>> &allreqd=T&allblnk=T&max=500 >>> Sincerely, >>> Kenneth Grome >> --------------------------------------------------------- >> This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to >> the mailing list . >> To unsubscribe, E-mail to: >> archives: http://mail.webdna.us/list/talk@webdna.us >> Bug Reporting: support@webdna.us > > > --------------------------------------------------------- > This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to > the mailing list . > To unsubscribe, E-mail to: > archives: http://mail.webdna.us/list/talk@webdna.us > Bug Reporting: support@webdna.us ------------ Govinda
Associated Messages, from the most recent to the oldest:
Hi Terry Thanks for jumping in! That is just what I had thought.. and so the reason I posted (when I saw that the search then does not work the way we are thinking). I.e. if I add 'rq' to those 2 group params/comparisons.. then the search finds nothing, as opposed to finding the 2 records that I had at first thought it would find. i.e. this: [search db=my.db&group1field=feeled1_Fruit &group2field = feeled1_Fruit &eqgroup1datarq =1apple&eqgroup2datarq=3cherry&wsfeeled3_HowUseddatarq=[url]baked dessert[/URL]&max=500] finds zero records. Now I can imagine how those results make sense (i.e. a search which requires *everything*.. thus requires one field to have 2 different values - which none do, thus zero records found).. but/and so my question still remains: If you were coding this, how would you write the search so that it finds ONLY record #1 & #3, *using grouped fields*? (see my original post (OP) for the database content) Terry can you write a search *using grouped fields*.. which meets this requirement: > (I need to be able to tell the search to return records where: > -[feeled3_HowUsed] = baked dessert, *AND* > -[feeled1_Fruit] = (*either* "1apple" or "3cherry" or "4mango" > > ...which is only records #1 and #3.) ? Thanks for chiming in! -Govinda On Dec 29, 2010, at 9:24 AM, Terry Wilson wrote: > Coming in a little late to this, but Ken's adding rq is all that's > needed. Without rq, unless there is only one search parameter, it > will find anything that fits something. So you'd want to add that to > all 3 parts of the search. Allreqd=t is not the same as adding rq to > your search parameters. It means that each part of the search has to > find something. > > > On Tue, 28 Dec 2010 22:54:14 -0500 > Govinda wrote: >> Hi Ken >> Thanks for that! >> It does work... even without the "&allreqd=T&allblnk=T". (see >> *note below.) >> I need to check to be sure that none of my 'words' that I might >> search for in the field (corresponding to the [feeled1_Fruit] >> field in my example) might have a word-delimiting char in their >> values.. (like a space char). If not, then I think what you >> suggested will be OK. I wanted to do it the other way so that >> regardless of what characters might be in the value, it would not >> break. I guess if I find any word-break chars in real values.. >> then I'll get creative with "wbrk" & "fbrk". >> With regard to the grouped-field technique, I assume that the moral >> of the story is that grouping fields only works when there are no >> other field comparisons going on, other than the grouped field(s). >> *Side note: >> Interesting that when I add 'allreqd=T' to my original search, like >> so: >> [search db = my .db &group1field = feeled1_Fruit &group2field = >> feeled1_Fruit &eqgroup1data >> =1apple&eqgroup2data=3cherry&wsfeeled3_HowUseddatarq=[url]baked >> dessert[/URL]&allreqd=T&max=500] >> ...it does not seem to have any effect at all. >> Thanks again! >> ------------ >> Govinda >> On Dec 28, 2010, at 10:24 PM, Kenneth Grome wrote: >>> Have you tried this: >>> &eqfeeled3_HowUseddatarq=[url]baked dessert[/url] >>> &wofeeled1_Fruitdatarq=[url]1apple 3cherry 4mango[/url] >>> &allreqd=T&allblnk=T&max=500 >>> Sincerely, >>> Kenneth Grome >> --------------------------------------------------------- >> This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to >> the mailing list . >> To unsubscribe, E-mail to: >> archives: http://mail.webdna.us/list/talk@webdna.us >> Bug Reporting: support@webdna.us > > > --------------------------------------------------------- > This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to > the mailing list . > To unsubscribe, E-mail to: > archives: http://mail.webdna.us/list/talk@webdna.us > Bug Reporting: support@webdna.us ------------ Govinda
Govinda
DOWNLOAD WEBDNA NOW!
Top Articles:
Talk List
The WebDNA community talk-list is the best place to get some help: several hundred extremely proficient programmers with an excellent knowledge of WebDNA and an excellent spirit will deliver all the tips and tricks you can imagine...
Related Readings:
Help! WebCat2 bug (1997)
FEATURE REQUEST: (was: Summarizing results. Is there ashortcut? (1999)
WebDNA for Window 2000 Server (2003)
back button loses cart (2000)
Header values are not accepted (1998)
Help name our technology! I found it (1997)
Browser Problem?!? POST forms and NN 4.0+ browsers (1997)
default error on NT? (1997)
Edit Plus and webcat code library - Gary Krockover (2003)
HomePage Caution (1997)
WebDNA Examples (Was Suggestions) (1998)
WYSIWYG Entry of text fields (2001)
OT - webdnadev.net ...... links bad??? (2005)
WebCatalog can't find database (1997)
MacAutorize and T1 (1998)
Migrating WebCatalog (2003)
WebCommerce: Folder organization ? (1997)
Error: Error: expected [/APPLICATION] ??? (1998)
Another question about credit cards (1997)
Sample Tearoom Search Error (1997)