Re: [feature req?]DeleteFounditem
This WebDNA talk-list message is from 2002
It keeps the original formatting.
numero = 42911
interpreted = N
texte = What you can do is use the ReplaceFounditems to change a current field tosomething like delete and then after the search run the delete function.Not to preach, but you should always have a unique field (an indentifier).----- Original Message -----From: Donovan
To: WebCatalog Talk Sent: Monday, August 26, 2002 8:21 AMSubject: Re: [feature req?]DeleteFounditem>>> John Peacock wrote:>> > Donovan wrote:> > > [search find_all]> > > [founditems]> > > [showif [math_TIME]>300]> > > [deletefounditem]> > > [/showif]> > > [/founditems]> > > [/search]> >> > Why can't you do this using the same search terms with the additionaltest of> > whatever you are doing with [math_TIME]>300???>> Because it would be easier to have a single tag me thinks. Its just anoption that>> makes things easier. [deletefounditem] inside a [founditems] loop would bea simple>> way to know that just that found record is going to be deleted.>> > I don't see any functionality> > that this adds. Besides, full table searches are very CPU intensive andshould> > be avoinded at all costs.>> I understand this, however I'll bet it *is* the most common searchperformed by us> developers. ;-)> -this .db is very small.. (on average 40 records with 4 field names)>> I ended up using [math_TIME] to narrow the search but it isn't really foolproof.> if two records have the same ID (in this case it can happen) and thesame> [math_TIME]> variable (unlikely that it is) then they both will be deleted.>> It just would have been nice to throw that tag in there. ;-) Now, ifthere are> drawbacks> like reducing the speed of the WebDNA engine then I would say no, don'tmake the> tag.>> At any rate, its not that hard to put an ID counter field in the databaseand> delete based off> of that so this addition would be more of a comfort tag than a needed tag.>> Donovan>> >> >> > John> >> > --> > John Peacock> > Director of Information Research and Technology> > Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group> > 4720 Boston Way> > Lanham, MD 20706> > 301-459-3366 x.5010> > fax 301-429-5747> >> >>> --> ------------------------------------------------------------------------>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------>> <><> Donovan Brooke <><>->ï> ------------------------------------------------------------------------>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------>>> -------------------------------------------------------------> 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/-------------------------------------------------------------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:
What you can do is use the ReplaceFounditems to change a current field tosomething like delete and then after the search run the delete function.Not to preach, but you should always have a unique field (an indentifier).----- Original Message -----From: Donovan To: WebCatalog Talk Sent: Monday, August 26, 2002 8:21 AMSubject: Re: [feature req?]DeleteFounditem>>> John Peacock wrote:>> > Donovan wrote:> > > [search find_all]> > > [founditems]> > > [showif [math_TIME]>300]> > > [deletefounditem]> > > [/showif]> > > [/founditems]> > > [/search]> >> > Why can't you do this using the same search terms with the additionaltest of> > whatever you are doing with [math_TIME]>300???>> Because it would be easier to have a single tag me thinks. Its just anoption that>> makes things easier. [deletefounditem] inside a [founditems] loop would bea simple>> way to know that just that found record is going to be deleted.>> > I don't see any functionality> > that this adds. Besides, full table searches are very CPU intensive andshould> > be avoinded at all costs.>> I understand this, however I'll bet it *is* the most common searchperformed by us> developers. ;-)> -this .db is very small.. (on average 40 records with 4 field names)>> I ended up using [math_TIME] to narrow the search but it isn't really foolproof.> if two records have the same ID (in this case it can happen) and thesame> [math_TIME]> variable (unlikely that it is) then they both will be deleted.>> It just would have been nice to throw that tag in there. ;-) Now, ifthere are> drawbacks> like reducing the speed of the WebDNA engine then I would say no, don'tmake the> tag.>> At any rate, its not that hard to put an ID counter field in the databaseand> delete based off> of that so this addition would be more of a comfort tag than a needed tag.>> Donovan>> >> >> > John> >> > --> > John Peacock> > Director of Information Research and Technology> > Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group> > 4720 Boston Way> > Lanham, MD 20706> > 301-459-3366 x.5010> > fax 301-429-5747> >> >>> --> ------------------------------------------------------------------------>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------>> <><> Donovan Brooke <><>->ï> ------------------------------------------------------------------------>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------>>> -------------------------------------------------------------> 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/-------------------------------------------------------------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/
Inkblot Media
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:
no word on MacAuthorize... (1997)
WebCat (or other) Indexing (1999)
WebCat2b13MacPlugIn - [showif][search][/showif] (1997)
[WebDNA] Rack Mount Server(s) Available (2009)
WebCatalog NT beta 18 problem (1997)
[WebDNA] MySQL float problems with WebDNA (2010)
Newbie Help Needed (1998)
Sorry WebDNA server not running (2002)
whole word matching (2004)
[WebDNA] Test (2014)
Stopping bad HTML propagation ? (1997)
Subject: Authenticating users without dialog box (1997)
getchars broken? (1997)
5.0 feature request: Sort for ListWords (2001)
I'm new be kind (1997)
check out page (SSL) not loading on Netscape 4.0+ (1999)
OT: ASP Developer (1999)
Can you do this??? and other stuff (1997)
pc (1997)
WebCat2b13MacPlugIn - More limits on [include] (1997)