Re: URGENT: NO BUG, woFIELDdata & FIELDword=ww

This WebDNA talk-list message is from

2002

It keeps the original formatting. numero = 45633
interpreted = N
texte = I should add a disclaimer here that my knowledge of all this is up-to-date as of 2000 - but I don't think there's been any significant changes to the search code since then.>I disagree here .. >>If I specify a wbrk on my search .. Say &FIELDwbrk=, then I would expect>that to carry into the field as well, no just the search string.You can disagree, but that's not how it works. I'd like my car radio volume to raise automatically when the road noise increases, but it doesn't. That doesn't make it a bug - a feature request perhaps (I'm not being too serious here, but you get my point :>).>>I am essentially looking for 'strings' in the search and am specifying what>breaks up the strings.>>300.5,2.2,100,5 is a string broken up with ,'s if I add &wbrk=, to the>search I would think this was also used to break up the field .. Especially>when using &FIELDword=ww.Only if that's what wbrk is supposed to do; but it's not. I'm not arguing that it wouldn't be nice to have it work differently, but it's not a bug.>>Perhaps my logic is wrong ?What you want is to specify the characters used to separate words in the database field - that's the real solution - but wbrk isn't the tool for that since it may be different than the way you separate keywords. I agree that it would be very useful. And I vaguely remember it being discussed long long ago, but I don't remember if anything was done about it. If I can dig anything up I'll let you know.As for the GROUPX comparisons and the rq option...Just to be clear, the PRODUCT_GROUP field has multiple values? Separated by a comma? Like 400.2,500,18,2?-- --------------------------------- John A. Hill Oak Hill SoftwareWebsite Development/Consulting john@oakhillsoftware.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://webdna.smithmicro.com/ Associated Messages, from the most recent to the oldest:

Re: URGENT: NO BUG, woFIELDdata & FIELDword=ww (Rob Marquardt 2002)
Re: URGENT: NO BUG, woFIELDdata & FIELDword=ww (John Hill 2002)
Re: URGENT: NO BUG, woFIELDdata & FIELDword=ww (Dennis J. Bonsall, Jr. 2002)
Re: URGENT: NO BUG, woFIELDdata & FIELDword=ww (Dennis J. Bonsall, Jr. 2002)
Re: URGENT: NO BUG, woFIELDdata & FIELDword=ww (Alain Russell 2002)
Re: URGENT: NO BUG, woFIELDdata & FIELDword=ww (Stuart Tremain 2002)
Re: URGENT: NO BUG, woFIELDdata & FIELDword=ww (Scott Anderson 2002)
Re: URGENT: NO BUG, woFIELDdata & FIELDword=ww (Alain Russell 2002)
Re: URGENT: NO BUG, woFIELDdata & FIELDword=ww (John Hill 2002)
Re: URGENT: NO BUG, woFIELDdata & FIELDword=ww (Rob Marquardt 2002)
Re: URGENT: NO BUG, woFIELDdata & FIELDword=ww (John Hill 2002)
Re: URGENT: NO BUG, woFIELDdata & FIELDword=ww (Alain Russell 2002)
Re: URGENT: NO BUG, woFIELDdata & FIELDword=ww (John Hill 2002)
Re: URGENT: NO BUG, woFIELDdata & FIELDword=ww (Bob Minor 2002)
Re: URGENT: NO BUG, woFIELDdata & FIELDword=ww (Tim Robinson 2002)
Re: URGENT: NO BUG, woFIELDdata & FIELDword=ww (Alain Russell 2002)
Re: URGENT: NO BUG, woFIELDdata & FIELDword=ww (John Hill 2002)

I should add a disclaimer here that my knowledge of all this is up-to-date as of 2000 - but I don't think there's been any significant changes to the search code since then.>I disagree here .. >>If I specify a wbrk on my search .. Say &FIELDwbrk=, then I would expect>that to carry into the field as well, no just the search string.You can disagree, but that's not how it works. I'd like my car radio volume to raise automatically when the road noise increases, but it doesn't. That doesn't make it a bug - a feature request perhaps (I'm not being too serious here, but you get my point :>).>>I am essentially looking for 'strings' in the search and am specifying what>breaks up the strings.>>300.5,2.2,100,5 is a string broken up with ,'s if I add &wbrk=, to the>search I would think this was also used to break up the field .. Especially>when using &FIELDword=ww.Only if that's what wbrk is supposed to do; but it's not. I'm not arguing that it wouldn't be nice to have it work differently, but it's not a bug.>>Perhaps my logic is wrong ?What you want is to specify the characters used to separate words in the database field - that's the real solution - but wbrk isn't the tool for that since it may be different than the way you separate keywords. I agree that it would be very useful. And I vaguely remember it being discussed long long ago, but I don't remember if anything was done about it. If I can dig anything up I'll let you know.As for the GROUPX comparisons and the rq option...Just to be clear, the PRODUCT_GROUP field has multiple values? Separated by a comma? Like 400.2,500,18,2?-- --------------------------------- John A. Hill Oak Hill SoftwareWebsite Development/Consulting john@oakhillsoftware.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://webdna.smithmicro.com/ John Hill

DOWNLOAD WEBDNA NOW!

Re: URGENT: NO BUG, woFIELDdata & FIELDword=ww

2002

Top Articles:

Related Readings: