Re: SMSI -- a [notfound] context?
This WebDNA talk-list message is from 2002
It keeps the original formatting.
numero = 41104
interpreted = N
texte = Scott Anderson wrote:> This would be fairly easy to implement. But it should probably be qualified> by a new [search] parameter....[Search db=......&Unmatched=T] then instead> of a new [NotFound] context, just use the existing [FoundItems] context to> display the 'UnMatched' records. This way, other search attributes and> aggregates could still be applied.I think that Scott is saying that if you included &Unmatched=T the [founditems] loop would show only the records that _did not match_ the search terms. You would have to do two searches:[Search db=......] [founditems] [!]these items matched the search terms[/!] [/founditems][/search][Search db=......&Unmatched=T] [founditems] [!]these items DID NOT match the search terms[/!] [/founditems][/search]It would be very difficult to program WebCat to find both matching/unmatching records and then return them in the proper order. It would require twice the RAM to store both returned lists and possibly sort them. It would be really slow on anything more than a few records...John-- John PeacockDirector of Information Research and TechnologyRowman & Littlefield Publishing Group4720 Boston WayLanham, MD 20706301-459-3366 x.5010fax 301-429-5747-------------------------------------------------------------This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list
.To unsubscribe, E-mail to: To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to Web Archive of this list is at: http://search.smithmicro.com/
Associated Messages, from the most recent to the oldest:
Scott Anderson wrote:> This would be fairly easy to implement. But it should probably be qualified> by a new [search] parameter....[Search db=......&Unmatched=T] then instead> of a new [NotFound] context, just use the existing [founditems] context to> display the 'UnMatched' records. This way, other search attributes and> aggregates could still be applied.I think that Scott is saying that if you included &Unmatched=T the [founditems] loop would show only the records that _did not match_ the search terms. You would have to do two searches:[Search db=......] [founditems] [!]these items matched the search terms[/!] [/founditems][/search][Search db=......&Unmatched=T] [founditems] [!]these items DID NOT match the search terms[/!] [/founditems][/search]It would be very difficult to program WebCat to find both matching/unmatching records and then return them in the proper order. It would require twice the RAM to store both returned lists and possibly sort them. It would be really slow on anything more than a few records...John-- John PeacockDirector of Information Research and TechnologyRowman & Littlefield Publishing Group4720 Boston WayLanham, MD 20706301-459-3366 x.5010fax 301-429-5747-------------------------------------------------------------This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list .To unsubscribe, E-mail to: To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to Web Archive of this list is at: http://search.smithmicro.com/
John Peacock
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 WITH DATES (1997)
Methods of protecting "invoice page" (2003)
summ=T (2003)
Adding Header Values with [SetHeader] (1998)
Logging purchases (1997)
Grant, please help me ... (1997)
MySQL and Numbers (2005)
Location of Browser Info.txt file (1997)
Nesting format tags (1997)
[date] formatting bug inside [orderfile]? (1998)
Re:Emailer and encryption (1997)
Details of shipping - Totalqty calculations (1997)
EMailer - WebSTAR V - OSX - WebDNA (2003)
Using Plug-In while running 1.6.1 (1997)
[date] insanity! (2001)
[click][/click] (1999)
Multiple download orders of the same product? (1997)
Hard Questions ? (1997)
Disappearing Inventory (2003)
WC2.0 Memory Requirements (1997)