Re: Sorting by highest number of matches unique to a field
This WebDNA talk-list message is from 2003
It keeps the original formatting.
numero = 52131
interpreted = N
texte = You could store the total number of messages in a thread in the first message for that thread (msg_rank=0, if I understand you scheme correctly) - say a "msg_count" field. When you add a message to the thread, increment "msg_count" in the first thread message. Then you could sort with [search db=db/ messages.db&eqmsg_rankdatarq=0&allhit=1&demsg_countsort=1&msg_counttype= num] No need to summ since you only find the first message per thread. - brian On Friday, August 8, 2003, at 11:17 AM, Robert Wade wrote: > I've tried this. In fact, I do have a ranking system that is exactly > how you described. Every post in the board belongs to a [msg_id] > (which identifies the thread), and every post also gets a [msg_rank] > (starting with 0). > > I tried a search like the following, hoping that it would work, but > the problem is that the results are summarized BEFORE they are sorted. > Therefore, it uses the first match of the msg_ranks within that > particular msg_id and uses it for the summ. Ideally, it would sort > the results FIRST, then summarize them using the top result dependent > upon your sort order. Seems like sort and summ could play together a > little nicer. > > [search > db=db/ > messages.db&nemsg_rankdatarq=[blank]&demsg_ranksort=1&msg_ranktype=num& > msg_idsumm=T] > > > On Friday, August 8, 2003, at 12:29 PM, WebDna @ wrote: > >> I have been looking into index searching alot lately. It may not be >> exactly >> what you want, but it may be along the right premise to getting what >> you >> need. >> >> Add an additional field to the DB or make a new DB that is associated >> with >> the main topic ID and it will contain a number. Starting out with 0 >> and then >> increase by one everytime someone post a reply to it. >> >> This would allow you to show the number of replies to a specific post >> without having to search and sum. >> >> Is this possible for you? >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Robert Wade"
>> To: "WebDNA Talk" >> Sent: Friday, August 08, 2003 10:12 AM >> Subject: Re: Sorting by highest number of matches unique to a field >> >> >>> Kenneth, Thanks. I just tried a slimmed down search with no sort >>> specified... >>> >>> [search db=db/messages.db&nemsg_iddatarq=[blank]&msg_idsumm=T&max=10] >>> [founditems] >>> ... >>> [/founditems] >>> [/search] >>> >>> What you are saying, is that this would list the [msg_id] at the top >>> that had the most matches? It didn't. >>> >>> this search seemed to randomly, pick out 10 results. I could not >>> find >>> a pattern to the sort at all. It just grabbed 10 of them out of >>> seemingly anywhere in the db., of those the highest number was 10 >>> matches. I know that one [msg_id] in particular has over 200 posts, >>> and there are many that have more than 10. >>> >>> I thought that the default sort was "best match" not "most matches" >>> In >>> otherwords the results that "best match" the search criteria, not the >>> results that have the most matches...? >>> >>> -- Confused. >>> >>> >>> On Friday, August 8, 2003, at 11:27 AM, Kenneth Grome wrote: >>> >>>>> I was hoping to get a clearer understanding of the possibility of >>>>> sorting a search by entries that have the most number of matches >>>>> first. >>>>> -- Brian Fries, BrainScan Software -- http://www.brainscansoftware.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:
You could store the total number of messages in a thread in the first message for that thread (msg_rank=0, if I understand you scheme correctly) - say a "msg_count" field. When you add a message to the thread, increment "msg_count" in the first thread message. Then you could sort with [search db=db/ messages.db&eqmsg_rankdatarq=0&allhit=1&demsg_countsort=1&msg_counttype= num] No need to summ since you only find the first message per thread. - brian On Friday, August 8, 2003, at 11:17 AM, Robert Wade wrote: > I've tried this. In fact, I do have a ranking system that is exactly > how you described. Every post in the board belongs to a [msg_id] > (which identifies the thread), and every post also gets a [msg_rank] > (starting with 0). > > I tried a search like the following, hoping that it would work, but > the problem is that the results are summarized BEFORE they are sorted. > Therefore, it uses the first match of the msg_ranks within that > particular msg_id and uses it for the summ. Ideally, it would sort > the results FIRST, then summarize them using the top result dependent > upon your sort order. Seems like sort and summ could play together a > little nicer. > > [search > db=db/ > messages.db&nemsg_rankdatarq=[blank]&demsg_ranksort=1&msg_ranktype=num& > msg_idsumm=T] > > > On Friday, August 8, 2003, at 12:29 PM, WebDna @ wrote: > >> I have been looking into index searching alot lately. It may not be >> exactly >> what you want, but it may be along the right premise to getting what >> you >> need. >> >> Add an additional field to the DB or make a new DB that is associated >> with >> the main topic ID and it will contain a number. Starting out with 0 >> and then >> increase by one everytime someone post a reply to it. >> >> This would allow you to show the number of replies to a specific post >> without having to search and sum. >> >> Is this possible for you? >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Robert Wade" >> To: "WebDNA Talk" >> Sent: Friday, August 08, 2003 10:12 AM >> Subject: Re: Sorting by highest number of matches unique to a field >> >> >>> Kenneth, Thanks. I just tried a slimmed down search with no sort >>> specified... >>> >>> [search db=db/messages.db&nemsg_iddatarq=[blank]&msg_idsumm=T&max=10] >>> [founditems] >>> ... >>> [/founditems] >>> [/search] >>> >>> What you are saying, is that this would list the [msg_id] at the top >>> that had the most matches? It didn't. >>> >>> this search seemed to randomly, pick out 10 results. I could not >>> find >>> a pattern to the sort at all. It just grabbed 10 of them out of >>> seemingly anywhere in the db., of those the highest number was 10 >>> matches. I know that one [msg_id] in particular has over 200 posts, >>> and there are many that have more than 10. >>> >>> I thought that the default sort was "best match" not "most matches" >>> In >>> otherwords the results that "best match" the search criteria, not the >>> results that have the most matches...? >>> >>> -- Confused. >>> >>> >>> On Friday, August 8, 2003, at 11:27 AM, Kenneth Grome wrote: >>> >>>>> I was hoping to get a clearer understanding of the possibility of >>>>> sorting a search by entries that have the most number of matches >>>>> first. >>>>> -- Brian Fries, BrainScan Software -- http://www.brainscansoftware.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/
Brian Fries
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:
Fwd: checkboxes (2000)
can pull down menu do a ONCHANGE= without Java script? (2000)
Couple of questions (1999)
Date search - yes or no (1997)
Processing stops (2006)
/Page Editor Not found (1998)
Size limit for tmpl editor ? (1997)
Include Troubles (1998)
faxing orders (2000)
WebCatalog2 Feature Feedback (1996)
printing twice? and fix (1997)
Date problems-more (1997)
format problem on NT? (1997)
Practice runs ? (1997)
is there a global includes directory? (1998)
Sorting problem (1997)
Re:quit command on NT (1997)
RE: Sorting error (1997)
IE 6 weirdness ??? (2002)
shell question / Unix guide (2004)