Re: Num Sort Descending

This WebDNA talk-list message is from

2004

It keeps the original formatting. numero = 56083
interpreted = N
texte = I think "wrong" and "right" are oversimplifications...The first method, where each field is tested individually, should work fine. It's probably a little slower than using a group, but it does the same thing and actually has an advantage: IF you are using WebDNA's default sorting, then testing each field individually may give you better "best match" results. From my testing a while back (it should be in the archives somewhere), I determined that WebDNA's rankings are based on the number of search terms that got a match, and a match on a group of fields only counts as one hit. So, if you search multiple fields individually, then if you get a match on three different fields then the record will be ranked higher than a record that only matched on one or two fields.Of course, if you are overriding the default sorting with "allhit=1" or "rank=off", I'd certainly recommend the group field method, for simplicity and maintainability of the code as well as minor performance improvement.The one thing I would consider "wrong" in this example, though, is the common error of not wrapping user input in a [url] context. If the user enters an ampersand, the search will break.- brianOn Feb 12, 2004, at 7:29 AM, John Peacock wrote:> This is wrong:>> &wsclient_namedata=[txtKeyword]&wsclient_repdata=[txtKeyword]&wsclient_ > phonedata=[txtKeyword]&wsclient_emaildata=[txtKeyword]&wsclient_numdata > =[txtKeyword]>> This is right:>> &GROUP1field=CLIENT_NAME+CLIENT_REP+CLIENT_PHONE+CLIENT_EMAIL+CLIENT_NU > M&wsGROUP1data=[txtKeyword]>> HTH>> John>> p.s. I changed the capitalization for a reason; think about it...>-- 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:

Re: Num Sort Descending ( "Dan Strong" 2004)
Re: Num Sort Descending ( Gary Krockover 2004)
Re: Num Sort Descending ( Brian Fries 2004)
Re: Num Sort Descending ( Brian Fries 2004)
Re: Num Sort Descending ( "Dan Strong" 2004)
Re: Num Sort Descending ( Gary Krockover 2004)
Re: Num Sort Descending ( Glenn Busbin 2004)
Re: Num Sort Descending ( Donovan Brooke 2004)
Re: Num Sort Descending ( Gary Krockover 2004)
Re: Num Sort Descending ( John Peacock 2004)
Re: Num Sort Descending ( Gary Krockover 2004)
Re: Num Sort Descending (OT) ( "Dan Strong" 2004)
Re: Num Sort Descending (OT) ( Matthew A Perosi 2004)
Re: Num Sort Descending (OT) ( Joe D'Andrea 2004)
Re: Num Sort Descending (OT) ( Matthew A Perosi 2004)
Was: Num Sort Descending (OT) Now: List Ediquette ( Donovan Brooke 2004)
Re: Num Sort Descending (OT) ( Justin Carroll 2004)
Re: Num Sort Descending (OT) ( Joe D'Andrea 2004)
Re: Num Sort Descending (OT) ( Justin Carroll 2004)
Re: Num Sort Descending ( Justin Carroll 2004)
Re: Num Sort Descending ( John Peacock 2004)
Re: Num Sort Descending ( John Peacock 2004)
Re: Num Sort Descending ( Joe D'Andrea 2004)
Re: Num Sort Descending ( Justin Carroll 2004)
Num Sort Descending ( Justin Carroll 2004)

I think "wrong" and "right" are oversimplifications...The first method, where each field is tested individually, should work fine. It's probably a little slower than using a group, but it does the same thing and actually has an advantage: IF you are using WebDNA's default sorting, then testing each field individually may give you better "best match" results. From my testing a while back (it should be in the archives somewhere), I determined that WebDNA's rankings are based on the number of search terms that got a match, and a match on a group of fields only counts as one hit. So, if you search multiple fields individually, then if you get a match on three different fields then the record will be ranked higher than a record that only matched on one or two fields.Of course, if you are overriding the default sorting with "allhit=1" or "rank=off", I'd certainly recommend the group field method, for simplicity and maintainability of the code as well as minor performance improvement.The one thing I would consider "wrong" in this example, though, is the common error of not wrapping user input in a [url] context. If the user enters an ampersand, the search will break.- brianOn Feb 12, 2004, at 7:29 AM, John Peacock wrote:> This is wrong:>> &wsclient_namedata=[txtKeyword]&wsclient_repdata=[txtKeyword]&wsclient_ > phonedata=[txtKeyword]&wsclient_emaildata=[txtKeyword]&wsclient_numdata > =[txtKeyword]>> This is right:>> &GROUP1field=CLIENT_NAME+CLIENT_REP+CLIENT_PHONE+CLIENT_EMAIL+CLIENT_NU > M&wsGROUP1data=[txtKeyword]>> HTH>> John>> p.s. I changed the capitalization for a reason; think about it...>-- 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!

Re: Num Sort Descending

2004

Top Articles:

Related Readings: