Re: [WebDNA] i wish we could require one *amongst of a collection* of search comparisons/params
This WebDNA talk-list message is from 2011
It keeps the original formatting.
numero = 107300
interpreted = N
texte = Thanks, and yes (I am for hire, if needed) :-)On Aug 29, 2011, at 12:44 PM, Govinda wrote:> Aaron, that is pretty sharp/clever of you ;-) Cool.>=20> I did hack around it last night with [tables].. and so far so good.. =but in case of any arising issues as all that data grows in size.. I am =going to remember what you suggested. I think I ought keep you on my =list of people to see if they are for hire, if I ever need :-)>=20> If any other ideas pop in, please share.>=20> Thanks> -Govinda>=20> p.s. - BTW, (for anyone who cares), I will bottom post when anyone =favors that too.. but just not when it would require copy/paste on =their replies to change to bottom posting. For the newbies - "bottom =posting" means when we always write our replies *below* any former text, =as opposed to on top, see i am top-posting here/now... it is quick and a =habit.. but makes for harder reading when someone comes along and tries =to read (make sense) from the archives.>=20>=20> On 2011-08-29, at 12:09 PM, aaronmichaelmusic@gmail.com wrote:>=20>> I just had a thought=85.>>=20>> If you're "eqTHIS_FIELDxxx_REQUIREDdatarq=3D[aaa]" string is looking =up client by a unique ID and you know that [aaa] will not be in either =FIELDyyy or FIELDzzz, then maybe you could still do the grouping this =way>>=20>> group1field=3Dfieldxxx+fieldyyy+fieldzzz&wagroup1datarq=3D[aaa] [bbb]>>=20>> between "fieldxxx+fieldyyy+fieldzzz", the search would have to find =both [aaa] and [bbb], right?>>=20>>=20>> On Aug 29, 2011, at 10:20 AM, Govinda wrote:>>=20>>> I am pretty sure I tried that (in the past), but, IIRC, grouping =fields does not work when you have other search params/criteria =*outside* of the grouped fields; grouped fields are only useful when =they are the only search criteria.>>>=20>>> Thanks for replying. :-)>>>=20>>> Anyone have any ideas?>>>=20>>> Thanks>>> -Govinda>>>=20>>> On 2011-08-29, at 10:02 AM, aaronmichaelmusic@gmail.com wrote:>>>=20>>>> It looks like a GroupFields in the search string would do the trick>>>>=20>>>=20>>>>> I need to find records that belong to a client (in a db full of =records for lots of clients), *AND* where a user-input string is found =in one of several other fields.>>>>>=20>>>>> So...>>>>>=20>>>>> I wish i had a good quick way (without loading a big RAM [table] =(which crash webdna when they get too large)) to effectively do this:>>>>>=20>>>>> imaginary (sample) syntax:>>>>>=20>>>>> [Search =db=3Dqqqqqq.db&eqTHIS_FIELDxxx_REQUIREDdatarq=3D[aaa]&eqFIELDyyydatarq1of2==3D[bbb]&eqFIELDzzzdatarq2of2=3D[bbb]]>>>>> [!]--->>>>> would return records where:>>>>> 1.) [THIS_FIELDxxx_REQUIRED] *necessarily =contained* "[aaa]">>>>> *AND*=20>>>>> 2.) *ANY* (*but at least one*) of these =conditions were met:>>>>> 2a.) [FIELDyyy] contained "[bbb]">>>>> *OR*>>>>> 2b.) [FIELDzzz] contained "[bbb]">>>>> ---[/!]>>>>> [/Search]>>>>>=20>>>>>=20>>>>> Given version 6.02, How would you do this (without a [table])?>>>>>=20>>>>> Thanks>>>>> -Govinda>>>=20>>>=20>>> - Govinda>>> -------------->>> Old WebDNA talklist archives:>>> http://dev.webdna.us/TalkListArchive/index.tpl?db=3Dwebdna-talk>>>=20>>> --------------------------------------------------------->>> 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>>=20>> --------------------------------------------------------->> 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>=20> ---------------------------------------------------------> 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
Associated Messages, from the most recent to the oldest:
Thanks, and yes (I am for hire, if needed) :-)On Aug 29, 2011, at 12:44 PM, Govinda wrote:> Aaron, that is pretty sharp/clever of you ;-) Cool.>=20> I did hack around it last night with [tables].. and so far so good.. =but in case of any arising issues as all that data grows in size.. I am =going to remember what you suggested. I think I ought keep you on my =list of people to see if they are for hire, if I ever need :-)>=20> If any other ideas pop in, please share.>=20> Thanks> -Govinda>=20> p.s. - BTW, (for anyone who cares), I will bottom post when anyone =favors that too.. but just not when it would require copy/paste on =their replies to change to bottom posting. For the newbies - "bottom =posting" means when we always write our replies *below* any former text, =as opposed to on top, see i am top-posting here/now... it is quick and a =habit.. but makes for harder reading when someone comes along and tries =to read (make sense) from the archives.>=20>=20> On 2011-08-29, at 12:09 PM, aaronmichaelmusic@gmail.com wrote:>=20>> I just had a thought=85.>>=20>> If you're "eqTHIS_FIELDxxx_REQUIREDdatarq=3D[aaa]" string is looking =up client by a unique ID and you know that [aaa] will not be in either =FIELDyyy or FIELDzzz, then maybe you could still do the grouping this =way>>=20>> group1field=3Dfieldxxx+fieldyyy+fieldzzz&wagroup1datarq=3D[aaa] [bbb]>>=20>> between "fieldxxx+fieldyyy+fieldzzz", the search would have to find =both [aaa] and [bbb], right?>>=20>>=20>> On Aug 29, 2011, at 10:20 AM, Govinda wrote:>>=20>>> I am pretty sure I tried that (in the past), but, IIRC, grouping =fields does not work when you have other search params/criteria =*outside* of the grouped fields; grouped fields are only useful when =they are the only search criteria.>>>=20>>> Thanks for replying. :-)>>>=20>>> Anyone have any ideas?>>>=20>>> Thanks>>> -Govinda>>>=20>>> On 2011-08-29, at 10:02 AM, aaronmichaelmusic@gmail.com wrote:>>>=20>>>> It looks like a GroupFields in the search string would do the trick>>>>=20>>>=20>>>>> I need to find records that belong to a client (in a db full of =records for lots of clients), *AND* where a user-input string is found =in one of several other fields.>>>>>=20>>>>> So...>>>>>=20>>>>> I wish i had a good quick way (without loading a big RAM [table] =(which crash webdna when they get too large)) to effectively do this:>>>>>=20>>>>> imaginary (sample) syntax:>>>>>=20>>>>> [Search =db=3Dqqqqqq.db&eqTHIS_FIELDxxx_REQUIREDdatarq=3D[aaa]&eqFIELDyyydatarq1of2==3D[bbb]&eqFIELDzzzdatarq2of2=3D[bbb]]>>>>> [!]--->>>>> would return records where:>>>>> 1.) [THIS_FIELDxxx_REQUIRED] *necessarily =contained* "[aaa]">>>>> *AND*=20>>>>> 2.) *ANY* (*but at least one*) of these =conditions were met:>>>>> 2a.) [FIELDyyy] contained "[bbb]">>>>> *OR*>>>>> 2b.) [FIELDzzz] contained "[bbb]">>>>> ---[/!]>>>>> [/Search]>>>>>=20>>>>>=20>>>>> Given version 6.02, How would you do this (without a [table])?>>>>>=20>>>>> Thanks>>>>> -Govinda>>>=20>>>=20>>> - Govinda>>> -------------->>> Old WebDNA talklist archives:>>> http://dev.webdna.us/TalkListArchive/index.tpl?db=3Dwebdna-talk>>>=20>>> --------------------------------------------------------->>> 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>>=20>> --------------------------------------------------------->> 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>=20> ---------------------------------------------------------> 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
aaronmichaelmusic@gmail.com
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:
WebCatalog 2.0 & WebDNA docs in HTML ... (1997)
How to search for fields with 10 or more characters? (2004)
+= (was RE: ++) (2005)
Secure server question (1997)
expired beta (1997)
WebCat 4.0 (2000)
F*** you (1998)
Re[3]: Charting records by state (2000)
decrypt trouble (2006)
test (1998)
Problems appending to database (1997)
Summing Fields (1998)
Follow-Up to: Removing [showif] makes a big difference in speed (1997)
WebCat2b15MacPlugin - showing [math] (1997)
Searching multiple fields from one form field (1997)
Searchable WebCat (etc.) Docs ? (1997)
Bug Report, maybe (1997)
WebCat2b15MacPlugin - [protect] (1997)
price carry over (1997)
Sorting by date (1997)