Re: [WebDNA] group searching not working as expected.

This WebDNA talk-list message is from

2010


It keeps the original formatting.
numero = 106064
interpreted = N
texte = > Good point about group1 and group2 calling the same field. > I'm not really understanding why you are wanting to use grouped fields Just because it was my first impulse. I thought to myself, "...two possible vals... same field.. that sounds like grouped fields." ... plus I figured it would be faster than bothering with word-delimeters (not that that would be hard though). > But I think you're better off making a normal-style search with Yes I did end up going the route that you and Ken both suggested in the end. > By the way, California isn't the first place I think of when I think > of blueberries. More like NJ, OR, MI. It's a big crop here in NJ > where I live. LOL :-) That db was just made up. The real one has 30 fields and 60k + records. I didn't know where blueberries were grown. All this makes me want to bake another pie! I love it when experts roll up their sleeves and actually scrutinize/ test run poster's code. Thanks so much for your time! -Govinda Associated Messages, from the most recent to the oldest:

    
  1. Re: [WebDNA] group searching not working as expected. (Govinda 2010)
  2. Re: [WebDNA] group searching not working as expected. (Terry Wilson 2010)
  3. Re: [WebDNA] group searching not working as expected. (Govinda 2010)
  4. Re: [WebDNA] group searching not working as expected. ("Terry Wilson" 2010)
  5. Re: [WebDNA] group searching not working as expected. (Govinda 2010)
  6. Re: [WebDNA] group searching not working as expected. (Kenneth Grome 2010)
  7. Re: [WebDNA] group searching not working as expected. (Govinda 2010)
  8. Re: [WebDNA] group searching not working as expected. (frank@cwolfe.com 2010)
  9. [WebDNA] group searching not working as expected. (Govinda 2010)
> Good point about group1 and group2 calling the same field. > I'm not really understanding why you are wanting to use grouped fields Just because it was my first impulse. I thought to myself, "...two possible vals... same field.. that sounds like grouped fields." ... plus I figured it would be faster than bothering with word-delimeters (not that that would be hard though). > But I think you're better off making a normal-style search with Yes I did end up going the route that you and Ken both suggested in the end. > By the way, California isn't the first place I think of when I think > of blueberries. More like NJ, OR, MI. It's a big crop here in NJ > where I live. LOL :-) That db was just made up. The real one has 30 fields and 60k + records. I didn't know where blueberries were grown. All this makes me want to bake another pie! I love it when experts roll up their sleeves and actually scrutinize/ test run poster's code. Thanks so much for your time! -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:

[TaxableTotal] - not working with AOL and IE (1997) grep is really pathetic sometimes (2003) Date search - yes or no (1997) Protect (1997) Re:Merging databases (1997) [ConvertChars] problem (1997) Using the sendmail command on CGate Pro (Unix) (2000) nesting limits? (1998) Bug or syntax error on my part? (1997) Formatting time output (2000) date pref (1999) [object] Tag & WebDNA Support (2005) Leap Day Triggers? -confirmation- (2000) WebCatalog can't find database (1997) Nesting format tags (1997) Thanks Grant (1997) Same DB Same Time (2004) [WebDNA] Limited Time Discount on WebDNA Server licenses (2013) Stock Quotes (2000) Color (1997)