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.com wrote:> 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 is getting 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 comma delimited list of all the fieldnames that matched the search string.I would be curious to know how much of a performance hit this method would create, especially on a large database. When you get your db populated, let us 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.com wrote:> 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 is getting 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 comma delimited list of all the fieldnames that matched the search string.I would be curious to know how much of a performance hit this method would create, especially on a large database. When you get your db populated, let us 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!
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:
WebCat2: Formulas.db question (1997)
[WebDNA] preventing hackers from posting their own (altered) (2009)
Mozilla/4. and Browser Info.txt (1997)
system crashes, event log (1997)
WebCat editing, SiteGuard & SiteEdit (1997)
Search returns all, not 20 (1997)
Download URL & access on the fly ? (1997)
WebCat2b13 Command Reference Doc error (1997)
A sendmail warning (2005)
[WebDNA] WebDNA glitch, no response required ... (2009)
Affiliate Schemes (2004)
RAM variables (1997)
F3 crashing server (1997)
testing webcat 4 (2001)
[showif] / [hideif] (1997)
WC2.0 Memory Requirements (1997)
Setting up the server (1997)
Nested searches (1998)
Search design (1997)
Webcat 2.0.1 date math bug -> Crash! (1997)