Hi Alan
I think your field contraint is fine-- the default grammar simply expects a
different syntax.
I could be mistaken, but I think either of the following expressions will give
you ANDed queries:
ANY:"x AND y"
ANY:x ANY:y
See if that gives you what you need. There may be a way beyond this to use the
grammar configuration
to move you toward the syntax you've used, but it's not occurring to me off the
top of my head.
Charles
Charles Greer
Lead Engineer
MarkLogic Corporation
cgr...@marklogic.com
Cell: +1 707 318 0442
@grechaw
www.marklogic.com
________________________________
From: general-boun...@developer.marklogic.com
[general-boun...@developer.marklogic.com] on behalf of Alan Darnell
[alan.darn...@utoronto.ca]
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2017 2:54 PM
To: General Developer Discussion
Subject: [MarkLogic Dev General] field constraint in search API
Having a little trouble setting up a field constraint in the Search API and
can’t find an answer in the documentation.
We’ve created a field called “anywhere” composed of a number of elements that
appear in our standard XML document.
We’ve also created a constraint called ANY defined as:
<constraint name=“ANY”>
<word>
<field name=“anywhere” />
</word>
</constraint>
We are sending the string ANY:(x y) to the search API. We are looking for this
to turn into two AND’d word queries but what we get is a phrase search on “x y”.
Here’s the output from the search API:
<search:report id="SEARCH-FLWOR">
(cts:search(/book, cts:field-word-query("anywhere", "x y", ("lang=en"), 1),
("score-logtfidf",cts:score-order("descending")), 1))[1 to 20]
</search:report>
We were hoping instead for something like this.
<search:report id="SEARCH-FLWOR">
(cts:search(/book, cts:field-word-query(“anywhere"),
cts:and-query((cts:word-query("x",
("case-insensitive","diacritic-insensitive","punctuation-insensitive","wildcarded","lang=en"),
1), cts:word-query("y",
("case-insensitive","diacritic-insensitive","punctuation-insensitive","wildcarded","lang=en"),
1)), ()), ()), ("score-logtfidf",cts:score-order("descending")), 1))[1 to 20]
</search:report>
Is this kind of search possible with fields? If so, how should the constraint
be defined?
Thanks in advance,
Alan
_______________________________________________
General mailing list
General@developer.marklogic.com
Manage your subscription at:
http://developer.marklogic.com/mailman/listinfo/general
