Re: Correlating the record found with the fieldname

This WebDNA talk-list message is from

2000

It keeps the original formatting. numero = 29914
interpreted = N
texte = on 4/3/2000 12:40 PM, Dennis J. Bonsall, Jr. at dbonsall@webbuilders.comwrote:> Is there any way that, when a record is found, I can figure out what> field in the database that record was found in? I have a database that> contains about 300 date fields in it, and I am doing a group search on> all the date fields at once. My customer wants to know what field the> matching date was found in, so she can determine what jobs need done, or> stages need complete. The search is suprisingly fast, but there are not> very many records yet. But, I don't know of any way to determine what> field the match was found in. Anyone got any pointers?> > Also, can I expect any performance troubles once this database gets> populated, especially on this particular search? The entire database> currently has 338 fields, and most of them are date fields, and I need> to search them all at once. Will this cause any problems?> > Thanks,> > Dennis> You might try using the [listfields] context to determine which field isgetting the match.====== Untested =======[search ...][founditems][text]record[index]=[listfields ...][showif [interpret][[fieldname]][/interpret]=[url][searchstring][/url]][fieldname],[/showif][/listfields][/text][/founditems][/search]========================(without the line breaks, of course)I think this would give you a list of text variables that were a commadelimited list of all the fieldnames that matched the search string.I would be curious to know how much of a performance hit this method wouldcreate, especially on a large database. When you get your db populated, letus know how it performs.Mike-------------------------------------------------------------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 Associated Messages, from the most recent to the oldest:

on 4/3/2000 12:40 PM, Dennis J. Bonsall, Jr. at dbonsall@webbuilders.comwrote:> Is there any way that, when a record is found, I can figure out what> field in the database that record was found in? I have a database that> contains about 300 date fields in it, and I am doing a group search on> all the date fields at once. My customer wants to know what field the> matching date was found in, so she can determine what jobs need done, or> stages need complete. The search is suprisingly fast, but there are not> very many records yet. But, I don't know of any way to determine what> field the match was found in. Anyone got any pointers?> > Also, can I expect any performance troubles once this database gets> populated, especially on this particular search? The entire database> currently has 338 fields, and most of them are date fields, and I need> to search them all at once. Will this cause any problems?> > Thanks,> > Dennis> You might try using the [listfields] context to determine which field isgetting the match.====== Untested =======[search ...][founditems][text]record[index]=[listfields ...][showif [interpret][[fieldname]][/interpret]=[url][searchstring][/url]][fieldname],[/showif][/listfields][/text][/founditems][/search]========================(without the line breaks, of course)I think this would give you a list of text variables that were a commadelimited list of all the fieldnames that matched the search string.I would be curious to know how much of a performance hit this method wouldcreate, especially on a large database. When you get your db populated, letus know how it performs.Mike-------------------------------------------------------------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 Mike Davis

DOWNLOAD WEBDNA NOW!

Re: Correlating the record found with the fieldname

2000

Top Articles:

Related Readings: